Can You Tube it? Providing chemistry teachers with technological tools and enhancing their self-efficacy beliefs

Abstract

The goal of this research was to examine the change in the skills, Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) and self-efficacy beliefs of chemistry teachers regarding video editing and using YouTube videos in high-school chemistry lessons, as a result of a professional development program that focused on editing YouTube videos and the accompanying teaching pedagogy. Sixteen experienced chemistry teachers participated in a professional development course regarding video editing skills and the use of videos in chemistry teaching in Israel. Research tools consisted of (1) a pre-post questionnaire, (2) interviews with teachers, (3) an analysis of the videos they edited (which were part of the course assignment), and (4) follow-up interviews conducted ten months after the end of the course. It was found that teachers improved their skills and developed a unique TPACK that combines videos with chemistry teaching needs. Self-efficacy beliefs were found to be high for most of the teachers: they all trusted in their ability to integrate videos in their chemistry teaching but not all of them were confident in their video editing skills.

---

Introduction

The era of Web 2.0

We live in an era of a technological-scientific revolution that is relevant for all of us—the era of Web 2.0. Alexander (2006) stressed “The term is audacious: Web 2.0. It assumes a certain interpretation of Web history, including enough progress in certain directions to trigger a succession”. However, Web 2.0 represents a conceptual change in the way contents are built in the internet and the way people utilise these contents. According to Wikipedia (Web 2.0., 2013), “Web 2.0 websites allow users to do more than just retrieve information… They provide the user with more user-interface, software and storage facilities, all through their browser… Major features of Web 2.0 include social networking sites, user created web sites, self-publishing platforms, tagging, and social bookmarking… Web 2.0 offers all users the same freedom to contribute”. Web 2.0 technologies provide teachers with new ways to engage students, and even allow student participation on a global level. However, children raised exclusively in the era of new media technologies are less patient with activities such as completing worksheets and listening to classroom lectures (Collins and Halverson, 2009).

Garcia-Martinez (2010) described the potential contribution of Web 2.0 to chemistry education: “There is great potential in the new social networking technologies to reach our kids using their own language and help them find their own interests”. YouTube™ is a social network that was launched in 2005, in which users share videos, and therefore will be considered in our study. According to YouTube statistics (http://www.youtube.com/t/press_statistics?hl=en) over 800 million unique users visit YouTube each month, over 4 billion hours of video are watched each month on YouTube, 72 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, YouTube is localized in 43 countries and across 60 languages, and during the year 2011 YouTube had more than 1 trillion views or around 140 views for every person on Earth. In other words, YouTube is a dynamic endless source of videos that can also be used in chemistry class. In this paper we explored training chemistry teachers to use YouTube as a dynamic source to be used in their chemistry classes.

Videos in chemistry education

Throughout the twentieth century, movies on chemistry have been used in many ways in chemistry education; in the following section we will review the historical development of movies (and later on videos) in chemistry education. The first traces of movies on chemistry consisted of a series of courses filmed in 1957 that were broadcast on a closed-circuit television network at a university in Oregon, USA (Slabaugh and Hatch, 1958). The students expressed two of the advantages of the televised course: (1) their ability to see the experiment close-up and (2) that they were able to concentrate more on the subject. Additionally, they indicated that the method also provided an opportunity for better-organized coursework and made it possible to cover a wider domain. One of the disadvantages cited by students was that the camera was unsuccessful in capturing some of the teacher's movements. Another disadvantage was that no questions could be asked while the movie was running.

Use of videos in science education has been successful in overcoming problems that cannot be eliminated using traditional teaching methods (e.g., understanding and conceptualization difficulties, misconceptions, and motivation) (Sanger and Greenbowe, 1997; Burke et al., 1998; Ebenezer, 2001; Kelly and Jones, 2007). Videos facilitate learning by allowing students to animate abstract chemical concepts in their minds (Williamson and Abraham, 1995; Cavanaugh and Cavanaugh, 1996; Goll and Woods, 1999; Sanger et al., 2000; Laroche et al., 2003; Yang et al., 2003; Marcano et al., 2004; Sanger et al., 2007) and make it easier for students to remember the important points of the subject matter (Kumar, 1991). It has been mentioned that videos have a positive impact on acquiring knowledge (Zahn et al., 2004; Michel et al., 2007) and contribute to the development of a student's cognitive capabilities, including interpreting, critical thinking, and problem-solving skills (Kumar et al., 1994; Hagen, 2002). The use of videos as teaching material also has a positive impact on a student's motivation (Kumar, 1991; Hagen, 2002). Next, we will provide some more examples of using videos in chemistry education and will discuss their educational contribution.

The audio-visual department of “École Normale Supérieure of Saint-Cloud” in France created videos that presented pedagogically the industrial manufacturing processes of chemical products (e.g., nitric acid, and sulfuric acid) to high-school students, based on their educational level (chemical equations, concepts of oxidation–reduction, etc.). Because of the high cost and unavailability of instruments and devices used in these techniques (e.g., Nuclear Magnetic Resonance—NMR, and Gas Chromatography—GC) Nienhowe and Nash (1971) began to produce videos to present them to students. Thus, videos made it possible to bring these techniques and instruments to the students' classroom. There are some specific advantages of using videos in the classroom. For example, demonstration of experiments in the form of videos protects students from hazards involving dangerous chemicals, and they do not involve expensive tools and equipment (Hakerem et al., 1993).

Rouda (1973) filmed some practical experiments (e.g., the vacuum technique, determination of vapor pressure, and the kinetics of a reaction involving hydrolysis) performed by students themselves. It was observed that the students who actively participated in these videos became significantly familiarized with the experiments and their various aspects, including the apparatus, theories, and calculations. The video technique improved the students' communication skills greatly. All the students in the group watched the videos before starting their practical experiments. Their laboratory log-books were of a much better quality compared with those from previous years (and did not use the videos) and it was also seen that they felt less stressed using the equipment needed in the exercises.

Russell and Mitchell (1979) prepared their students for practical exercises by producing fifteen videos that reveal the basic techniques of quantitative analysis and their application to particular cases (e.g., weighing and use of a pipette or a burette for an acid–base titration). The videos were freely accessible outside the classroom but they were also shown at the beginning of the corresponding sessions. The time used by the students to complete the experiments was reduced considerably, sometimes by half. A qualitative improvement in the experimental results was also observed perhaps because students exhibited less anxiety as they began to discover and make use of the intricacies of the equipment during their experiments (Pekdag and Le Maréchal, 2010).

Gelder et al. (1980) reported the use of images of the process of crystal growth in videos. They used computer graphics in chemistry education. The animation shows a cubic crystalline structure and its regularity in a video lasting 7 minutes and 30 seconds. The video enables students to visualize the elementary lattice and the number of particles in the lattice. The 3-D animation that was used in the video gave life to this model of a perfect crystal, held the students' attention, and created conditions for better learning (Pekdag and Le Maréchal, 2010).

The use of laser-read videodisc (CD-ROM) constituted another step forward toward using multimedia in chemistry education. It brought about interactivity as a new dimension in using videos in chemistry education. Use of the laser-read videodisc shortened the access time of a video and made it possible to decide to play a video, depending on the response given by the user. Thus, students were able to explore a process image by image and possibly backward and forward (Brooks et al., 1985). This interactive process allows a certain form of educational customization (Pekdag and Le Maréchal, 2010). Many videos on chemistry have been produced and are available on the internet. Many videos serve both teachers and students, thus making learning and teaching easier by making chemistry more concrete. It is becoming increasingly more common to find videos of chemistry experiments, animations, and simulations that explain abstract chemistry concepts on YouTube (Pekdag, 2010), thus making students' conceptual learning of chemistry much easier (Pekdag and Le Maréchal, 2010). Videos provide students with the opportunity to watch microscopic chemical events with the help of active three-dimensional models. Students can see what they are not able to directly perceive, with the help of videos (Sanger et al., 2000; Ebenezer, 2001).

In two innovative studies (Annaliese, 2012; Lichter, 2012) students were challenged to create and upload a video explaining one of the learned concepts. Annaliese' (2012) study was focused on a YouTube “video script” writing assignment where the student selected an organic chemistry concept and described how they would “teach” or creatively explain the concept to their fellow classmates using real-world examples in a popular YouTube video format. Later, the students proceed to make their own YouTube video based on this written assignment. The students feedback showed that the writing assignment and the video creation provided an effective method to engage students, create a student-centered learning experience, and use technology to enhance self- and peer-explanation learning strategies. Lichter (2012) challenged students in a general chemistry course to create and upload a video to the video-sharing Web site YouTube that could be used to learn solubility rules. The YouTube video assignment improved student learning of the rules and promoted interest in chemistry among a majority of the students involved in the activity. The students who produced videos performed significantly better than the rest of their classmates in terms of remembering the solubility rules. Remarkably, students who did not make videos but watched them did better than students who did not produce or watch videos.

Making use of videos in a teaching environment has changed the styles of teaching and has created a shift from teacher-centered to student-centered instruction. Instead of remaining passive, students actively participate in the learning process (problem-solving, knowledge-building, etc.) in the classroom (Bernauer, 1995; Own and Wong, 2000). Therefore, training teachers is of great importance in making effective and productive use of videos in educational environments. With the use of videos, styles of learning change and teachers are required to adapt to such changes in classroom education. Equal importance should also be given to producing videos. The production process includes the content of the video, the chemistry knowledge offered, suitable and effective images, and the length of the video. With today's changing perspective on education, the production of chemistry videos is a process in which experts in different areas such as chemists, chemistry educators, and specialists in computer technologies work together. Thanks to advanced technologies, videos on chemistry produced today are now recorded on CDs and are available on YouTube for students' use as part of their educational curriculum.

However, in order to incorporate videos into chemistry lessons, teachers need to be trained, not only in the technical aspects of using videos in the classroom, but also in choosing appropriate methods and strategies that will facilitate the incorporation of videos into the learning process. Moreover, they should understand the benefits of using video media and believe in their own abilities to use videos. In other words, teachers need to have technological pedagogic content knowledge (TPACK) and technological teaching self-efficacy, as will be discussed in the following sections.

TPACK

The technological advancement we have been witnessing in recent years has affected our life in every possible aspect, including the classroom environment and the way teachers can teach. However, there is a gap between the potential of the technological advancement and its actual use in the classroom. This can be explained due to many reasons, among them, the fact that teachers tend to see technology as just “tools for educational content management” (e.g., a projector to show slides, a mail server for sending in homework, etc.) and not as a means for making the curriculum accessible to students (e.g., using the technological experience to improve teaching) (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Voogt et al., 2012).

It is common to look at Shulman's work from the late 1980s as the foundation for understanding teachers' teaching capabilities. Shulman claimed that teachers rely on two elements in their teaching: content knowledge and pedagogical skills. He also claimed that these two elements should not be separated, rather, they should be integrated. This is why he suggested the term PCK (Pedagogical Content Knowledge) to describe the intersection between the two elements and the merging of content and pedagogy into a complete understanding of how the different aspects of a specific subject are organized, coordinated, and represented for instruction. Shulman claimed that PCK occurs when a teacher interprets the subject matter and finds different ways to make it accessible to the student (Shulman, 1986).

When Shulman first published his work, the technology was not yet discussed, even though some technologies had already emerged in classrooms, starting from textbooks, all the way to projectors. However, these technologies were almost “transparent” and they were used as tools for managing the educational curriculum. Since then, technologies have developed and advanced, as was described before, and have moved to the forefront of education, and have dramatically changed it. Mishra and Koehler (2006) argued that teachers nowadays cannot stop at only understanding technology and the way it works—they would also have to gain a deep understanding of the advantages these technologies offer if implemented appropriately. They therefore suggest changing the term PCK to TPCK (Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge) in order to include the knowledge and skills relevant to technology as part of the instructional process (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Some researchers support this approach, for example, Hammond and Manfra (2009) claim that teachers first decide how to teach a specific subject matter (PCK) and only then consider the use of technology in their instruction. They also claim that TPCK describes the manner in which one integrates technology in teaching (Hammond and Manfra, 2009).

There are different definitions of the term TPCK, all of which refer to it as a framework of knowledge needed by the teacher to incorporate technology into teaching. It is also possible to find in the literature a similar term (TPACK) described as an intersection between three different knowledge bases (Content Knowledge, Pedagogical Knowledge, and Technological Knowledge). The use of both terms in the literature is acceptable and there is an ongoing debate on how the term should be treated (Voogt et al., 2012). According to Thompson and Mishra (2007), TPACK better reflected the interdependence of the three contributing knowledge domains (i.e. content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and TK). For example, if teachers use specific software in their teaching, which does not support a certain aspect of the curriculum, this might harm the pedagogical quality of the instruction and require the teacher to find a pedagogical solution to compensate for the gap.

Nevertheless, there is a wide agreement that TPACK is a framework describing how content, pedagogy, and technology influence and complement one another. The TPACK framework allows teachers to design pedagogical strategies and to examine the changes needed in the teacher's knowledge to create effective technology-based teaching. The TPACK method requires a good understanding of how to represent educational ideas, pedagogical techniques, and content knowledge in the curriculum, all with the use of technology (Mishra and Koehler, 2006; Abbitt, 2011).

TPACK is a knowledge framework that expert teachers know how to incorporate into their teaching almost without notice, especially when the technologies being used are known and common. TPACK becomes apparent when it uses non-conventional or status quo breaking technologies that force the teacher not only to better understand the technology and its advantages, but also to match the other components of the TPCK framework to the teaching process using this technology (Mishra and Koehler, 2006).

The TPACK subject has been researched not only at the theoretical level—there were also trials to try incorporating TPACK into teachers' training programs and to evaluate these teachers' performance in classrooms using TPACK. For example, in 2009 this combination was examined with four teachers who underwent a special educational seminar. The result of the research showed that some of the teachers preferred to maintain their traditional framework of teaching, i.e. almost without any technology integration, whereas others made use of many different technological tools, such as clickers, internet websites and applications, simulations and computer software, with varying satisfaction among the teachers (Guzey and Roehrig, 2009).

In addition, other research indicates that teachers who undergo these kinds of special seminars and training programs regarding TPACK tend to gain an understanding that TPACK is a good knowledge framework that contributes to the instructional process, and especially to the understanding that there is a need to integrate content, pedagogy, and technology instead of viewing them as separate components (Niess, 2005; Koehler et al., 2007).

One prominent example of applying TPACK is the use of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), such as internet-based classrooms. This kind of learning provides a better clarification, explanation, and emphasis on the added value of subject matter that students usually find difficult to understand or teachers find difficult to teach (Angeli and Valanides, 2009; Jimoyiannis, 2010; Lee and Tsai, 2010).

Niess (2011) suggests a framework for planning a TPACK framework based on four components: (1) an overarching concept about why the technology was incorporated into teaching a particular subject; (2) knowledge of students' understanding, thinking, and learning with technology in that subject; (3) knowledge of the curriculum; and (4) curriculum material in a particular subject that integrates technology into learning and teaching, and knowledge of instructional strategies and representations for teaching and learning that particular topic with technology (Niess, 2011). Having TPACK is not enough in order to actually bring the new technology to school. Teachers should also believe in their own ability to incorporate the new technology into their teaching, namely having high self-efficacy beliefs.

Teaching efficacy beliefs

Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998) defined teaching self-efficacy as “teacher's belief in her or his ability to organize and execute the courses of action required to successfully accomplish a specific teaching task in a particular context” (p. 22). It was also considered as a judgment of his or her capabilities to bring about the desired outcomes of students' involvement and learning, even among those students who may be difficult or unmotivated (Bandura, 1977; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).

Gibson and Dembo (1984) suggested “Teachers who believe students' learning can be influenced by effective teaching (outcome expectancy beliefs) and also have confidence in their own teaching abilities (self-efficacy beliefs) should persist longer, provide a greater focus in the classroom, and exhibit different types of feedback than teachers who have lower expectations concerning their ability to influence student learning” (Gibson and Dembo, 1984, p. 570). Teachers' sense of efficacy has been linked to students' outcomes such as achievement, motivation, and students' own sense of efficacy (Guskey, 1981, 1988; Ashton and Webb, 1986; Pajares, 1993; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001; Cakiroglu et al., 2012). In addition, teachers' efficacy beliefs are related to classroom behavior, and the effort that teachers invest in teaching. Teachers with a strong sense of efficacy tend to be more organized and generally plan better than those without a strong sense of efficacy. They also tend to be more open to new ideas and innovations, more willing to experiment with new teaching methods (e.g., using technology), are better in meeting the needs of their students, and are more likely to use powerful but potentially difficult-to-manage methods such as inquiry and small-group work (Ashton and Webb, 1986; Pajares, 1993; Guskey and Passaro, 1994; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001). Greater self-efficacy beliefs empower teachers to be less critical regarding students' mistakes, to work longer with students who are struggling (Ashton and Webb, 1986), and to exhibit greater enthusiasm and commitment to teaching (Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001).

A model for teachers' efficacy was presented by Tschannen-Moran et al. (1998). This model suggests that teachers' efficacy judgments result from interaction between analysis of teaching tasks in context: personal assessment of those factors that make a specific task easy or difficult, and analysis of teaching competence: a self-assessment of personal teaching capabilities and limitations specific to the task. As indicated in the model, teachers judge their competence in relation to a specific teaching task, and these judgments result in an efficacy expectation for that task. One of the reasons that make teachers' efficacy judgments so powerful is the cyclical nature of the process by which they are formed. The performance and outcomes create a new mastery experience that provides new information (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Woolfolk-Hoy and Davis, 2006). According to Tschannen-Moran's model, the efficacy judgments have an impact on the goals that teachers set for themselves, the amount of effort they put into reaching these goals, and their persistence when facing difficulties and obstacles. Teachers' decisions and behaviors, based on efficacy beliefs, lead to outcomes that become the basis for future efficacy judgments (Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001; Woolfolk-Hoy and Davis, 2006; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009).

Bandura (1997) posits that four main sources influence self-efficacy beliefs: (1) mastery experience, (2) vicarious experience, (3) verbal and social persuasion, and (4) emotional and physiological states. The major influences on self-efficacy beliefs, according to Tschannen-Moran's model, are cognitive interpretations of the four sources of efficacy information described by Bandura. As mentioned before, the development of teaching self-efficacy is of a cyclic nature. Therefore, making an efficacy judgment is a process in which teachers assess their strengths and weaknesses in relation to the context and requirements of the task at hand. The performances and outcomes create a new mastery experience that provides new information that will be processed; this consequently creates new efficacy beliefs. Greater efficacy leads to greater effort, which leads to better performance, which in turn, leads to a greater sense of efficacy, and lower self-efficacy leads to less effort and giving up easily, which leads to poor teaching outcomes, which consequently result in decreased self-efficacy (Gibson and Dembo, 1984; Ashton and Webb, 1986; Bandura, 1997; Tschannen-Moran et al., 1998; Tschannen-Moran and Woolfolk-Hoy, 2001; Woolfolk-Hoy and Davis, 2006). However to integrate new technology in teaching, teaching self-efficacy is not enough. Teachers also need to have or develop technology self-efficacy beliefs, and in our case (e.g., using videos) they should have computer and internet self-efficacy.

Computer efficacy beliefs

Self-efficacy is expected to affect task effort, persistence, expressed interest, and the level of goal difficulty selected for performance. Within any given domain there are different levels of task demands (Torkzadeh and Van Dyke, 2002). Computer self-efficacy (CSE) was defined by Compeau and Higgins (1995) as an individual judgment of one's capability to use a computer. CSE has been found to be important in decisions about using them, and increased performance with computer-related tasks was found to be significantly related to higher levels of CSE (Albion, 1999). CSE is positively correlated with an individual's willingness to choose and participate in computer-related activities, expectations of success in such activities, and persistence or effective coping behaviors when faced with computer-related difficulties (Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Karsten and Roth, 1998). CSE plays a significant role in use of systems and even in helping the individual to acquire more easily many of the skills associated with effective computer use (Marakas et al., 1998). The importance of users' self-efficacy in terms of using the internet has also been suggested (Lee and Tsai, 2010). A variety of views and measures of CSE exist. They include general computer self-efficacy (GCSE), which focuses on the overall ability to use computers, and specific computer self-efficacy (SCSE), which focuses on the individual's ability to use a particular system (Compeau et al., 2006).

According to Bandura (1986), self-efficacy influences a variety of individual behaviors and emotions. Research in a variety of domains established that CSE influences people's decisions to use computers and the extent of their use (Thompson et al., 2006). CSE has been associated with a collection of behaviors that includes computer adoption and use, various types of behavior intention (e.g., to behave ethically, to purchase), job-related behaviors (e.g., absenteeism, career interests, job stress, and knowledge sharing), and application in systems development (Thompson et al., 2006). CSE exerts an influence on individual's choice of behaviors with respect to information technology. CSE influences the degree of confidence possessed by an individual regarding some aspect of computing behavior (e.g., personal usage decisions, participation in development systems, and knowledge sharing) (Thompson et al., 2006). Self-efficacy is important to help understand technology acceptance, implementation, and use (Torkzadeh and Van Dyke, 2002). Research also suggests that the attitude of the trainee toward computer usage influences the outcome of training programs. Attitudes toward computers are expected to influence the individual's self-efficacy (Torkzadeh and Van Dyke, 2002).

Nevertheless, training has been suggested as an important means of improving computer self-efficacy (Compeau and Higgins, 1995; Marakas et al., 1998). Venkatesh and Davis (1996) suggest that training programs aimed at improving computer user self-efficacy may be more effective in increasing systems use than an improved interface approach. Torkzadeh and Van Dyke (2002) suggest that training significantly influences internet self-efficacy and also that user' attitudes toward computers are less likely to change with training. Several studies have claimed that teachers have anxiety and/or low confidence about using computers or the internet (e.g., Chou, 2003; Lee and Tsai, 2010). Other studies indicated that there were some relationships between the teachers' experiences and their attitudes toward computers (Lee and Tsai, 2010). Roberts (2003) suggested that teachers' Web-based teaching experience correlates with their use of Web-based teaching.

The study

Since using YouTube is a new technological challenge in chemistry education, there is lack of research regarding effective teaching and teachers' self-efficacy beliefs using this media. The goal of this research was to examine the change in the skills, TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs of chemistry teachers regarding video editing and using YouTube videos in high-school chemistry lessons, as a result of a professional development program that focused on editing YouTube videos and the accompanying teaching pedagogy. Accordingly, the research questions are as follows:

1. How did the professional development program for using and editing YouTube videos in chemistry teaching influence teachers' video editing skills?

2. How did the professional development program for using and editing YouTube videos in chemistry teaching influence teachers' TPACK toward using videos in their chemistry classes?

3. How did the professional development program for using and editing YouTube videos in chemistry teaching influence teachers' self-efficacy beliefs regarding editing and using YouTube videos in their teaching?

Methodology

Participants

The program's participants included 16 chemistry teachers from 16 different high schools in Israel. All the teachers were female, with age range 40–62 (the average age was 53) and had at least 15 years of high-school science teaching experience, mainly in grades 10–12 (students' age 16–18 years). For the sake of privacy, the names of all teachers were changed. The teachers voluntarily chose to participate in the professional development course and in the accompanying research.

Course description

The professional development course was designed to teach high-school chemistry teachers to use the free Movie Maker program for editing videos, to build the relevant TPCK for using videos in chemistry lessons, and to increase teachers' self-efficacy in editing and using videos in chemistry lessons.

The course was conducted during one school-year (2011–2012) in the framework of the National Centre of Chemistry Teacher in Israel and consisted of 14 meetings of 4 hours blocks: 2 web-based meetings, and 12 face-to-face meetings. The course was structured accordingly: first, we taught the fundamental skills of searching, using, and downloading YouTube videos. Then, the teachers learned how to use Movie Maker (a freeware used to edit videos produced by Microsoft). Each video that was produced by the teachers was tried out in their chemistry class and was also presented during the course meetings. During the whole program there was an ongoing debate on the use of the videos in chemistry teaching and about the pedagogy related to this use (TPACK). The initial two assignments were on individual basis and the final assignment was a group project (four teachers in a group). This form of assignments that combines individual assignments with a final group assignment is typical to professional development courses that were conducted in the National Centre of Chemistry Teacher in Israel.

Data collection and analysis

The data that we were interested in referred to the main goal of the study, namely, to examine the change in skills, TPACK, and self-efficacy beliefs of chemistry teachers regarding editing and using YouTube videos in high-school chemistry lessons, as a result of a professional development program that focused on editing YouTube videos and the accompanying teaching pedagogy. The data consisted of several research tools, in order to enable triangulation of the data: (1) a pre-post questionnaire, (2) interviews with teachers, (3) an analysis of the videos they edited (which were part of the course assignment), and (4) follow-up interviews conducted ten months after the end of the course. The analyses of the interviews and the videos were performed according to basic methods of qualitative data analysis (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glesne, 2006). A pre-post questionnaire was used to examine the self-reported change in the teachers' abilities and skills to edit videos and the way teachers use videos in their chemistry teaching as a result of the course. In the following section we will elaborate on each analysis of the data collection and in the discussion we will show how the use of the different tools supported the data of each other, and gave a broader picture in each of the research questions.

1. Teacher questionnaire. The teacher questionnaire included three parts: (1) teachers' general internet abilities, (2) teachers' video editing skills, and (3) teachers' perceptions regarding using videos in chemistry lessons.

The first part included a list of general internet abilities (e.g., searching programs on the web, downloading programs, installing programs, and YouTube search). The teachers were asked to grade their abilities on the following scale: I am afraid to use (grade = 0), I do not know (grade = 1), I know but I do not use (grade = 2), I know and I use (grade = 3). The same scale was used for the second part of the questionnaire, in which a list of advanced skills in video editing was presented (e.g., using Movie Maker, “cutting” a video, adding a picture to a video, adding dubbing to a video, and adding sub-titles to a video). The third part of the teachers' questionnaire was an open question in which the teachers were asked to describe recommended situations and recommended contents for using videos in chemistry lessons. In this part we counted the different situations and recommended content that were suggested by the teachers. The questionnaire was statistically analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test (suitable for a minimum sample size of three), to examine the change in teachers' skills and perceptions regarding the use of videos in chemistry teaching.

2. Structured interview with the participating teachers. Seven teachers were chosen randomly and were interviewed toward the end of the professional development program by the second author of this paper who was also part of the course instructors. Teacher interviews were aimed at covering different aspects of the teachers' perceptions. The interviews focused on the teachers' perceptions regarding the effectiveness of using videos in their chemistry lessons and their self-efficacy beliefs. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. All of the participating teachers were asked a series of specific questions:

– How do you feel today when you come to work with Movie Maker?

– What were your feelings before you started the professional development program?

– Can you indicate what parts in the program supported your learning?

– Did you use a video that you downloaded or edited by yourself in your classroom?

– What were your students' reactions to the video?

– Did the video contribute to the lesson? Please explain how.

– Do you feel that this professional development course, which focused on editing and using YouTube videos in chemistry lessons, is worthwhile? Please explain.

In this study, teachers' answers were categorized and analyzed using qualitative research methods. The analysis of the teacher interviews included the following categories: teachers' perspectives regarding using videos in chemistry lessons, their TPACK, as well as their self-efficacy beliefs regarding editing and using videos as part as their chemistry teaching practice. The interviews were first analyzed separately by the first and the second authors, according to three main categories that were derived from the research questions (skills, TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs). Then, more categories and sub-categories emerged from reading the statements in each of the primary categories (Glaser and Strauss, 1967; Glesne, 2006). The two authors separately analyzed the data accordingly and discussed their analyses until a consensus was reached.

3. Analysis of videos. During the course the teachers had three assignments: (1) to search YouTube and download a video that is relevant to their teaching, and to personalize the video for their own students by adding an opening slide to the video, (2) to prepare a video for one of the subjects in the high-school chemistry syllabus that uses more advanced editing skills, and (3) to prepare a video of a short lecture about cutting edge chemistry research or a different video that includes an original video, combining all the learned skills. The videos that the teachers produced for the second and third assignments in the course were analyzed according to their content and the skills that teachers used in editing the videos. We chose not to analyze the first assignment because it was given at the beginning of the course when the teachers' skills in Movie Maker were still very limited.

4. Follow-up interviews. Ten months after the end of the teachers' course, a follow-up interview was conducted with the seven teachers who were interviewed at the end of the course (research tool 3) in order to learn about their use of videos in chemistry lessons without the supporting environment of the course. All of the participating teachers were asked a series of three specific questions:

– Do you still use videos in your chemistry class? Please provide examples.

– Do you still use the Movie Maker in order to adapt videos to your class?

– Do you feel that you c̲a̲n̲ continue to improve your video-editing skills after the course ended?

The short interviews were conducted over the phone and were used to learn about the long-term influence of the course on the teachers' practice and their related self-efficacy beliefs. Notes were taken during these interviews.

Findings

The findings include an analysis of the findings resulting from (1) teacher questionnaires, (2) semi-structured interviews with the participating teachers, (3) analysis of videos, and (4) follow-up interviews.

1. Teachers' questionnaire

The teachers' questionnaire was analyzed using the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test, and the average change in teachers' general internet skills (before and after) is presented in Fig. 1. No significant change in the general internet skills was recorded. The teachers that chose to participate in the course reported that they had a high level of general internet skills before they even started the professional development course. Fig. 2 presents the teachers' self-reported abilities (before and after) in advanced skills of video editing. A significant change (p < 0.05) was recorded in ten of the eleven skills that were posed in the questionnaire. The previous knowledge of the teachers regarding advanced skills of video editing was low and as a result of the course they significantly improved their ability in video editing, as was expected from the course.

Fig. 1 Teachers' general internet skills before and after the course regarding the six representative skills. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was applied to the questionnaire results (N = 16).

Fig. 2 Teachers' advanced skills in video editing, before and after the course, regarding eleven representative skills. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was applied to compare between pre and post results, *p < 0.05 (N = 16).

The third part of the teachers' questionnaire was an open question in which the teachers were asked to describe recommended situations and recommended contents for using videos in chemistry lessons. A significant increase in the number of teaching situations and chemistry contents in which each teacher suggested the use of videos was recorded, as shown in Fig. 3. Table 1 presents teachers' suggestions (taken from the post questionnaire) for different contents and situations in chemistry class in which they recommended videos to be used.

Fig. 3 Average number of teaching situations and chemistry contents in which each teacher suggested the use of videos before and after the course. The Wilcoxon Signed Rank test was applied to compare the pre and post results, *p < 0.05 (N = 16).

Table 1 Examples of classroom situations and school chemistry contents in which teachers recommended the use of videos. The examples were taken from teachers' questionnaires

Category	Teacher quotes
Situations	To start a new subject in class, I open with a video
	To emphasize an important part of a subject I teach
	To give my throat a rest
	To vary my teaching methods
	To deal with a problematic class
	To improve my image from the students' point of view
	To teach students using their language
	To end a lesson at the end of the day
Contents	To demonstrate laboratory procedures such as acid–base titration
	To visualize the abstract concept of chemical bonding
	To visualize an abstract chemical concept
	To show the difference between cis- and trans-unsaturated oils
	To show experiments (like explosions) that I can't bring to my classroom
	To expose students to size and scale in the nano and molecular dimensions
	To show protein structures: the way they are built from amino acids and the connection between structure and function
	To trigger students' inquiry process in the laboratory

---

2. Semi-structured interviews with the participating teachers

Seven teachers were interviewed during the last meeting of the course. Analysis of the teacher interviews included the following categories: teachers' perspectives regarding using videos in chemistry lessons, their perceived TPACK, and their self-efficacy beliefs regarding editing and using videos as part as their chemistry teaching practice.

Perspectives regarding using videos in chemistry lessons. All the interviewed teachers described in the interview different situations in which they used (or recommend to use) videos in chemistry teaching. They all mentioned many situations and a variety of chemistry contents. They all displayed very positive perceptions regarding the use of videos in chemistry education, as presented in Table 2. This result was expected, since the teachers chose to participate in the course to learn how to integrate videos into chemistry teaching.

Table 2 Categories and sub-categories of interview analysis. Samples are given for each sub-category as well as the number of teachers who discuss each subcategory, among the seven teachers who were interviewed

Category	Sub-category	Examples	Number of teachers
Perspectives regarding using videos	Positive	“This is an excellent working tool. I edit the video, take out part that I don't need. The product is really useful in class”.	7/7
TPK	Variety of teaching methods	“The video can be used to vary the teaching, when I see that my students are tired, or when I want to make them focus on an important point, I use a video”.	7/7
	Interaction with students	“I used the video with a class that disliked me and disliked chemistry. The moment I showed them the video they enjoyed it, the video format “talked to them” and they looked at me differently. They thought the teacher is OK, she knows how to download videos and to edit them. They accepted me”. “The video helps the students to concentrate. When I feel they are tired, I show the video. They appreciate these pauses in the lesson sequence”. “I feel that the integration of the videos in my lessons enhances students' motivation to learn chemistry. They prefer this mode of learning”.	6/7
TPACK	Visualization of abstract chemistry concepts	“A video, such as the oil acid video that I prepared to visualize the structure properties relation, can help students visualize abstract chemistry concepts”.	6/7
	Lab experiments	“I use the videos to help my students learn lab procedures that are difficult, before they do them on their own”. “I brought videos of experiments that I can't do at school: explosions and dangerous compounds”.	7/7
	Scientists' lecture	“It's difficult to bring a scientist to discuss his research with my students. With the videos, I can find interesting lectures, adapt them to my students by adding explanations to the video, and bring the cutting-edge of science to school”. “I prepared for my students a video with a short lecture about Professor Dan Shechtman, who received the Nobel prize in chemistry; I can't even dream of bringing him to my class”.	5/7
	Source of TPACK	“When I saw all the videos the other teachers prepared, I immediately took some of them to my classes. We all looked for videos that are useful to the syllabus. I found one but received 15 more from the other teachers”. “After we tried the videos in class, each teacher got feedback from her students. So, we shared not only the videos but also the students' reaction to them. It encouraged me to use them with my students”.
Self-efficacy	High self-efficacy	“This is really intuitive. I understood that I can do what you taught me in the course as well what you didn't. I know this is possible”. “I feel that I am getting a lot out of this course. Using videos in my teaching is new for me. I plan to continue to learn and to improve myself even after the course”. “I spend a lot of time at home trying to edit the videos. I want to produce a product that will serve my needs with the students”.	4/7
	Medium self-efficacy	“Now I understand what is the Movie Maker and its functions and what I can do with it. I also understand that there are parts that I still don't fully understand. I am not afraid of the program but I don't feel comfortable to try everything”.	3/7
Sources of self-efficacy	Mastery experience	“I had never used videos in my class before the course. During the course I first tried the video I had downloaded for the first assignment. The students really liked it and it was a very successful experience”. “Each time I edit a video in the course I do it faster and better and use more complicated editing skills—I love to do it”. “I don't create videos or movies. I just edit them. I take videos from YouTube; I then add what I need. This is a winning formula”.	7/7
	Vicarious experience	“It is difficult for me [to use the Movie Maker]. But I see how Esty does it. We teach at the same school. I may need to practice a lot but I can get better like she does”. “In the course we learned very quickly many editing and internet skills. I felt it was too fast for me. But then I saw that I am not the only one, it's not just me. Slowly we all understood most of the program's functions”.	4/7
	Verbal persuasions	“I almost quit the course. At home I have an old PC, I couldn't understand anything. But then Moshe told me that it's not so different, and that I can do it. He offered me support. Eventually I sat at home and worked many hours and succeeded even without his support”.	2/7

---

Teachers' TPACK. While analyzing the interviews, we were looking for evidence about the teachers' TPACK. All teachers linked the integration of videos to the advantage of having a variety of teaching methods. For example, “The video can be used to vary the teaching, when I see that my students are tired, or when I want to make them focus on an important point I use a video”. However, the justification of using videos in chemistry teaching to vary the teaching cannot be considered as TPACK, since it does not include any connection to teaching certain chemistry topics. This kind of statement represents the development of TPK (Technological Pedagogical Knowledge) and we look for knowledge that combines the technology with the pedagogical content knowledge that is unique to chemistry education. Another TPK that emerged in the interviews dealt with the role of using videos in teacher–student interactions. Teachers felt that their students appreciated them more after they used the first video in class.

We therefore looked for other evidence for the perceived TPACK. Six out of the seven teachers that were interviewed described their TPACK. For example, “The video can visualize abstract chemistry concepts such as the oil acid video in which I prepared to visualize the structure properties relation”. This teacher described the unique knowledge that combines her understanding of chemistry teaching with the video technology and therefore it can be categorized as TPACK (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). The use of videos for visualization is especially important in chemistry education, which requires a connection between different levels of understanding: the macro level, the micro level, the symbol level, and the process level (Johnstone, 1991; Dori and Hameiri, 2003; De Jong et al., 2013). Of the four levels, the micro level and the process level are invisible and therefore require abstract thinking. The use of visualization is one of the teaching methods used to deal with this difficulty (De Jong et al., 2013). Other TPACKs that were raised in the interviews included different uses of videos in the chemistry laboratory and bringing the cutting edge of chemistry research to school, as shown in Table 2.

Moreover, all seven teachers explained the source of their TPACK. They indicated that they received ideas regarding the use of specific videos in certain places in the syllabus. For example, “I took the video of the teaspoon [called “I don't get wet”] that Barbara presented. I have used it since then as a trigger for my students' first inquiry lab. I can see how this video supports their inquiry learning”. The importance of the community of learners in the development of teachers' TPACK was emphasized. They mentioned that the process of sharing the course assignments, that were carried out during each meeting and the discussion after each video, enhanced their knowledge regarding how to integrate the right video into the right content and into the right teaching context. More examples of teachers' TPACK as well as TPK are presented in Table 2.

Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs regarding editing and using videos. The teachers chose to participate in the course and therefore believed in their ability to learn how to edit and use videos in school even before they started the course. Nevertheless, two levels of teachers' self-efficacy beliefs were found among the seven teachers: (1) teachers who expressed a high level of efficacy beliefs regarding editing and using videos in chemistry teaching, and (2) teachers with a medium level of efficacy beliefs. The high self-efficacy teachers (four out of the seven teachers that were interviewed) showed high confidence in their ability to learn editing skills and to use the videos in school. The teachers who showed a medium level of self-efficacy were all confident in their ability to use the videos at school but showed a lower level of belief in their ability to use the Movie Maker program. After participating in the course, they had a realistic view regarding the difficulty of editing and using videos in class. Therefore, their efficacy beliefs are influenced by a realistic estimation of the difficulty level. As one of the “medium self-efficacy” teachers explained: “Now I understand what is the Movie Maker and its functions and what I can do with them. I also understand that there are parts that I still don't fully understand. I am not afraid of the program but I don't feel comfortable to try everything”. It is important to note that even those teachers who still do not feel comfortable in using the MovieMaker, do feel comfortable in using videos in their chemistry lessons.

The source for developing self-efficacy beliefs emerged during the analysis of the interviews. All the teachers talked about the encouragement they received from their successful assignments, and from the positive feedback of their students, namely, mastery experience. They described the successful experiences as an important driving force. The course assignments were designed to gradually elevate the level of difficulty in order to provide the teachers with successful experiences and to support the building of their self-efficacy by successful mastery experiences (Pajares, 1996). In addition to mastery experience, vicarious experience was an effective source for developing teachers' self-efficacy beliefs regarding their video skills. Four out of the seven teachers who were interviewed described their course peers as models from whom they learn how to accomplish the assignment and to master the learned skills. Two out of the seven teachers described a process in which they were able to build their self-efficacy based on verbal persuasion. The course guides encouraged the teachers by telling them that they would be able to succeed in the course and offered technical support. Two teachers who raised doubts regarding their abilities, mostly because of technical problems, stated that the verbal support that they received increased their confidence and encouraged them to continue until they had completed the assignments.

3. Analysis of videos

During the course the teachers received three assignments. In this section we present an analysis of the videos that teachers submitted for the course assignments. Table 3 presents the videos that teachers prepared regarding subjects from the chemistry syllabus and Table 4 presents the advanced assignment that was done in small groups.

Table 3 Content and skill analysis of videos prepared by the teachers regarding subjects from the chemistry syllabus. Average number of skills per video: 5

Syllabus subject/skills	Video title	Length	Video-related skills^a	Other teaching materials
a The following coding is used for describing different video editing skills: import video – 1, record a video – 2, cut a video – 3, connect two videos – 4, add a picture – 5, add a title – 6, add subtitles – 7, add soundtrack – 8, edit the soundtrack – 9, add transitions and effects – 10, add chemical formula – 11, share the video on-line – 12, import and edit slide shows – 13.
Atomic structure	Hard water	1 : 26	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Student sheets
The periodic table	The periodic table	10 : 33	1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12	Classroom activity
Ionic compounds	Dissolving ionic compounds in water	6 : 03	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Student sheets
Ionic compounds	Precipitation reactions	7 : 36	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Student sheets
Oxidation reduction reactions	Oxidation reduction	3 : 01	1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12	Student sheets
Oxidation reduction reactions	Corrosion	3 : 54	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Student sheets
Acid–base reactions	Acids and bases	4 : 46	1, 3, 12	Student sheets
Vitamins	Vitamins	10 : 23	1, 6, 12	Student sheets, written background
Oil acids	Oil acids	2 : 55	1, 3, 5, 6, 12	Student sheets
Sugars	Sugars	3 : 45	2, 12, 13	Student sheets
Sugars	Poly-sugars	3 : 21	1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12	Student sheets, written background
Proteins	Proteins structure	0 : 59	1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 12	Student sheets
Nanotechnology	What is nano?	3 : 29	1, 3, 8, 9, 12	Classroom activity
Industrial chemistry	The Dead Sea industry	10 : 15	1, 3, 12, 13	Student sheets
Inquiry process	Don't get wet	1 : 35	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Inquiry guidelines
Inquiry process	Shaving foam inside a glass bell	1 : 24	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Inquiry guidelines
Inquiry process	The colorful elephant lab	0 : 41	1, 3, 6, 7, 12	Inquiry guidelines

---

Table 4 Content and skill analysis of videos prepared in an advanced assignment towards the end of the course, average number of skills per video: 10

Video subject	Video title	Length	Video-related skills^a	Other teaching materials
a The coding that is used for describing different video editing skills is described in Table 3.
The development of chemistry	From Dalton to nanochemistry	32 : 02	1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13	Student sheets, written background
Nanotechnology	Nanotechnology-based future applications	18 : 20	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12	Student sheets
Image clip for school chemistry	Choose chemistry	5 : 12	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12	A written background
Students' chemistry conferences	Students' chemistry conferences	2 : 10	1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13	A written background

---

In all the videos, the teachers used the three basic skills of importing a video, cutting a video, and sharing the video on-line, as shown in Tables 3 and 4. These three skills, together with the basic internet skill of searching YouTube for suitable videos, are enough in order to introduce videos into chemistry lessons. In most of the videos the teachers also added a title and subtitles. These two skills helped teachers personalize the video for their own students and for their specific use. An analysis of the videos that were prepared at the end of the course (Table 4) reveals the improvement in skills that the teachers displayed. They used in average ten skills per video in the final group assignment and only five skills (in average) in the individual assignments. They used many of the learned skills and were able to combine the videos in the Power Point presentations that they actually use in class.

4. Follow-up interviews

The follow-up interview was planned to examine the long-term influence of the course. All seven teachers still integrate videos into their chemistry teaching. Each of them gave examples of videos that they used during the year. Thus, the use of videos had become part of their teaching repertoire. However, one of the teachers stated that she uses videos from YouTube but does not edit or change them. She said “I don't feel confident enough to edit the videos”. All the others described their work with the videos and gave examples of videos that they had edited during the year. They described how they had adapted the videos for specific use in their chemistry lessons.

The last question of the follow-up interview tried to identify teachers' self-efficacy beliefs regarding their ability to improve themselves and to better use the editing program. All the teachers said that they know that there is still a lot to learn. Then, each of them described her way of learning. We arranged their statements gradually, from the lowest self-efficacy to the highest self-efficacy statements.

• At this moment I feel happy with what we learned. I don't feel that I can learn more.

• There has been no progress since the end of the course. I can improve my skills but I need a lot of practice.

• My impression is that there is still a lot to learn. I can develop in the field.

• In the course we learn the basic functions. I can to continue my development.

• There are always new developments to learn. I feel I can get better: If there will be a new program I will learn it too.

• After the course I learned to use NCH software for video and audio editing; it is much better. I want to be up to date.

• I always learn more regarding the pedagogy and the technology and upgrade my use of videos in my lessons.

Except for the first statement that reveals low self-efficacy beliefs, all the other statements show that the teachers still believe in their ability to learn how to better edit the videos. They know the present state of their knowledge, they want to improve their skills, and they believe in their ability to better use the Movie Maker or even a more advanced editing program. The last teacher stated that she can always learn more regarding the technical aspects of video editing as well as the TPACK regarding using videos in chemistry teaching and therefore her statement was graded as the highest self-efficacy in the group.

Discussion

The discussion is based on integration of the results from the different research tools consisting of (1) a pre-post questionnaire, (2) interviews with teachers, (3) an analysis of the videos they edited, and (4) follow-up interviews conducted ten months after the end of the course. The discussion will be presented according to each research question.

1. How did the professional development program for using and editing YouTube videos in chemistry teaching influence teachers' video editing skills?

The results from the teachers' questionnaire show that the teachers who participated in the course began with high general internet skills, as presented in Fig. 1. Their basic Technological knowledge (TK) (Mishra and Koehler, 2006) was high before they had started the course. In the first research question we examined the development of the teachers' TK as a result of the course. During the course the teachers were introduced to a new technology, video editing and sharing. A significant change was recorded in nine out of the ten video editing skills that were included in the questionnaire, as shown in Fig. 2. In addition to the teachers' questionnaire, the analysis of the videos that the teachers edited during the course reveals the same results. In the second assignment (videos prepared regarding subjects from the chemistry syllabus) the teachers used five video editing skills on average and at the end of the course they had already used ten different skills (on average) in preparing the third assignment. They had enhanced their teachers' TK as a result of the course. In addition, in the follow-up interviews all the teachers (except one) described the way they are still using an editing program for their teaching, ten months after the end of the course. This achievement is impressive, taking into account that most of the technological educational innovations fade after the end of the intervention (Flick and Bell, 2000). However, having a high level of TK is not enough in order to use the technology in teaching (Mishra and Koehler, 2006). Therefore, we also examined two other factors that influenced the implementation of new technology in teaching: teachers' TPACK using the video technology in chemistry school teaching and teachers' self-efficacy beliefs in integrating the video technology into their teaching will be presented in the second and third research questions.

2. How did the professional development program for using and editing YouTube videos in chemistry teaching influence teachers' TPACK for using videos in their chemistry classes?

Teachers' TPACK was examined in the interviews and from the follow-up interviews. Examining this question first led us to find a general development of common TPK for all the teachers. They all justify the use of videos in chemistry lessons to vary their teaching method, as presented in Table 2. Using a variety of teaching methods to support students' understanding was described in other studies. Blonder and Sakhnini (2012) developed a nanotechnology module based on a variety of teaching methods (that also included videos). They implemented different teaching methods (e.g., game-based learning, learning with videos and animations, learning with models, project-based learning, and storytelling and narratives) to support students' understanding. Students felt that most of the teaching methods facilitated their learning. In a different study, Blonder and Rap (2012) designed an activity for a science festival and decided to consider the principle of varying teaching methods as one of their design principles. Most of the teachers also described the positive effect of the videos on their interactions with their students (Table 2). We could not find other research that evaluated the influence of videos on teacher–student interactions. However, studies about the influence of using Facebook in education reveal that the students perceived teachers who use Facebook as a complementary teaching environment as better teachers (O’Sullivan et al., 2004; Mazer et al., 2007, 2009). Facebook and YouTube are both social networks, and therefore it is reasonable that they will both lead to a common effect on teacher–student interactions.

Unique knowledge that the chemistry teachers had built up during the course, namely, TPACK, was described in the interviews. The teachers discussed their use of the videos to support their students' understanding of the sub-micro domain. The use of videos and animations for making the invisible visible is well known in chemistry education research. Research has shown that visualization tools can lead to a better understanding of chemistry in general and molecular structure in particular (Kozma and Russell, 1997; Mayer, 1997; Coleman and Gotch, 1998; Barnea and Dori, 2000; Burewicz and Miranowicz, 2002; Ferk and Yrtacnik, 2003; Williamson and Jose, 2008; Tuvi-Arad and Blonder, 2010).

The teachers in the study also used the videos in the chemistry laboratory for different purposes, all of which are described in the literature: to present experiments that they are not able to perform in the school lab (Hakerem et al., 1993), to teach lab techniques before the hands-on work (Pekdag and Le Maréchal, 2010), to bring to the school lab instrumentation that is not available at school (Nienhowe and Nash, 1971). A unique suggestion of the teachers was to use the videos as a trigger for training their students to use lab inquiry skills. Teachers showed a video that triggered students to ask questions, to pose assumptions, and to plan an experiment for inquiring about their questions.

In addition, the teachers used the video medium to bring the cutting-edge of chemistry research to their students. Traditionally, the teacher had to make contact with an active scientist, and to schedule a visit by the researcher in a school or a class visit to the research institute (or university). The coordinating process and the limited time of the researchers do not support these meetings, and only a few high school students get to meet a scientist and to listen to her/him talk about her/his research. When teachers use videos of researchers' lectures many high-school students can listen to authentic research stories and have an opportunity to be part of the process of scientific research and to the human aspects that are involved. One of the teachers that edited a lecture by Dan Shechtman, an Israeli Nobel laureate in chemistry, said: “I prepared for my students a video of a short lecture by Professor Dan Shechtman, who received the Nobel Prize in chemistry; I can't even dream of bringing him to my class”. There are still challenges remaining regarding how to edit the video of a lecture so that it will be understandable to the students (Kapon et al., 2009). However, the teachers now have the technical tools and skills to modify the video so that it will be suitable to their own students.

Other studies indicate that teachers who undergo these kinds of special seminars and training programs regarding integration technology in their teaching tend to gain an understanding that TPACK can contribute to the instructional process, and especially to their understanding that there is a need to integrate content, pedagogy, and technology instead of viewing them as separate components (Niess, 2005; Koehler et al., 2007).

3. How did the professional development program for using and editing YouTube videos in chemistry teaching influence teachers' self-efficacy beliefs in editing and using YouTube videos in their teaching?

Bandura (1997) defined self-efficacy beliefs as follows: “Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments” (p. 3). Self-efficacy can influence the courses of actions people choose to pursue, how much effort they invest in a given task, and how long they will persist facing obstacles and failures. Self-efficacy involves judging one's capabilities with regard to a particular task, and the degree of anxiety or serenity they experience (Pajares, 1996; Bandura, 1997; Schunk and Meece, 2006; Usher and Pajares, 2008; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009).

In this study we examined teachers' self-efficacy beliefs in their ability to edit videos and use them in their class by analyzing teachers' interviews, and their long-term self-efficacy beliefs were analyzed from the follow-up interviews. We assume that all the teachers who took the course believed in their ability to master video editing skills. However, when they started the course, they were confronted with the difficulty level of the course and, consequently, the self-efficacy beliefs of three of the teachers decreased. They showed a medium level of self-efficacy. Four of the seven teachers who were interviewed maintained a high level of self-efficacy beliefs during the course. The teachers invested many hours in mastering the video' skills. One of the teachers said in an interview: “I spend a lot of time at home trying to edit the videos. I want to produce a product that will serve the needs of my students”. People with high confidence in their capabilities approach difficult tasks as challenges to be mastered rather than as threats to be avoided; they sustain their efforts in the face of failure and quickly recover their sense of efficacy after failure or setbacks (Bandura, 1997; Woolfolk Hoy et al., 2009).

During the interviews the teachers described the sources that influenced their self-efficacy. We rank their explanations according to Bandura's theory. Bandura posits that there are four main sources that influence efficacy: mastery experience, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal. In all of the seven interviews we found that mastery experience, namely, successful experience supported the development of teachers' self-efficacy. Vicarious experience and verbal persuasion were also evident. The structure of the course supported the teachers with opportunities to experience success (mastery experience), opportunities to be part of the teachers' community and learn from the success of their peers (vicarious experience), and to receive encouragement from the course guides (verbal persuasion).

According to social cognitive theory, self-efficacy beliefs are considered to be a strong predictor of behavior (Zimmerman, 2000; Schunk and Meece, 2006). Bandura (1977) explained that self-efficacy determines “a person's estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes” (p. 193). Therefore, an important result of this study is the high level of self-efficacy beliefs that was found in the follow-up interviews and teachers' intention to continue their development. After taking the course and after trying the videos in their classes, the teachers attained skills in editing videos. Their efficacy beliefs are the best predictors of their future behavior, and they will determine whether they will use videos in chemistry teaching or not.

Concluding remarks

In the current study we tried to bridge the gap between the modern YouTube and video technology and chemistry teaching. The teachers who participated in the course developed skills to technically handle the video technology. They also developed TPACK. The specific TPACK required was essential for the integration of a new technology in a way that supports content teaching. In addition, a special consideration was given to teachers' self-efficacy beliefs regarding the technical parts of editing the YouTube videos and regarding the integration of the videos in their teaching. The results of the study suggest that when the technology is common (e.g., YouTube videos) and the teachers receive the opportunity to develop skills, TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs by trying the new technology in class, by being part of a community of learning, and by receiving verbal and technical support, teachers will integrate the new technology in their teaching even after the end of the intervention.

Implications for practice

The professional development program which was presented in this paper was based on two theoretical frameworks: TPACK and self-efficacy beliefs. The understanding that providing teachers with isolated TK regarding videos editing is not enough in order to support their use of video in their chemistry teaching led us to develop an integrated model. The model included three components: (1) direct teaching of the video technology, (2) immediate implementation of the video technology in chemistry teaching, and (3) group discussions after using the videos in class. This structure supported the explicit development of teacher TPACK regarding using videos in chemistry classes as well as teachers' self-efficacy beliefs in using them.

TPACK was built during the group discussions in the meetings. Each of the teachers presented the video that she tried-out in her class and described the students' reactions. The group built a common TPACK regarding specific chemistry content, specific teaching situations and specific places in the chemistry curriculum in which a certain video can be used effectively in order to support students' learning.

Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs were built based on their own successful experience of using video in class (mastery experience), as well as the positive evidence which was presented by their peers during the meetings (vicarious experience). In addition, a personal guidance and support was given to the teachers who faced technical difficulties with the video technology (verbal persuasion).

We suggest that this model for professional development can be effective for implementation of other modern technologies in teachers' repertoire. We believe that, in order to treat teachers' knowledge and attitudes, one should support teachers' TK as well as the group development of common TPACK while refereeing to their self-efficacy beliefs. In the current academic year of 2012–2013 we conduct a professional development program for chemistry teachers, which is focused on Facebook groups for chemistry learning. We use the same model with a different distribution between web-based meetings and face-to-face meeting. Preliminary results show similar trends in the way chemistry teachers learn to use: (1) the Facebook, (2) a Facebook group with the students and (3) develop positive self-efficacy beliefs towards the use of the Facebook platform. It is important to note that since the development of TPACK occurs within the teachers' learning-community, it is important to provide such courses to group of teachers who teach the same subject (e.g., chemistry, physics).

Research limitations

Only 16 teachers participated in the current research and they were all women. In other studies, gender and age variables were found to affect the examined TPACK (Koh et al., 2010; Jang and Tsai, 2012) and computer self-efficacy beliefs (Busch, 1995; Lim, 2001; Hartzel, 2003; Chyung, 2007). Our small sample did not provide an opportunity to look into sub-groups to learn about the age issue, and the fact that the participants were all women limited our research to the female gender.

Acknowledgements

The teachers' course was conducted and funded in the framework of the National Centre of Chemistry Teachers in Israel.

Part of the research was conducted in the framework of Rothschild–Weizmann program for Excellence in Science Teaching, supported by the Rothschild–Caesarea Foundation.

References

1. Abbitt J. T., (2011), Measuring Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge in Preservice Teacher Education: A Review of Current Methods and Instruments. J. Res. Technol. Educ.,43(4), 281–300.
2. Albion P., (1999), Self-efficacy beliefs as an indicator of teachers' preparedness for teaching with technology, in Proceedings of the 10th International Conference of the Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education (SITE 1999), Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), pp. 1602–1608.
3. Alexander B., (2006), Web 2.0: a new wave of innovation for teaching and learning? Educ. Rev., March/April, 33–44.
4. Angeli C. and Valanides N., (2009), Epistemological and methodological issues for the conceptualization, development, and assessment of ICT-TPCK: advances in technology and pedagogical content knowledge (TPCK), Comput. Educ.,52, 154–168.
5. Annaliese K. F., (2012), Organic chemistry youtube writing assignment for large lecture classes, J. Chem. Educ., 2012, 89(4), 497–501.
6. Ashton P. T. and Webb R. B., (1986), Making a difference: teachers' sense of efficacy and student achievement, New York, NY: Longman.
7. Bandura A., (1977), Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change, Psychol. Rev., 84, 191–215.
8. Bandura A., (1997), Self-efficacy: The Exercise of Control, New York, NY: Freeman.
9. Bandura A., (1986), The explanatory and predictive scope of self-efficacy theory, J. Social and Clin. Psych., 4, 359-373.
10. Barnea N. and Dori Y. J., (2000), Computerized molecular modeling: the new technology for enhance model perception among chemistry educators and learners, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 1, 109–120.
11. Bernauer J. A., (1995), Integrating technology into the curriculum: first year evaluation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA. Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED385224).
12. Blonder R. and Rap S., (2012), It's a small world after all: A nanotechnology activity in a science festival, J. Nano Educ., 4, 47–56.
13. Blonder R. and Sakhnini S., (2012), Teaching two basic nanotechnology concepts in secondary school by using a variety of teaching methods, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract.,2012(4), 500–516.
14. Brooks D. W., Tipton T. J. and Lyons E. J., (1985), Laboratory simulations by computer-driven laser videodiscs, J. Chem. Educ.,62, 514–515.
15. Burewicz A. and Miranowicz N., (2002), Categorization of visualization tools in aspects of chemical research and education, Int. J. Quantum Chem.,88, 549–563.
16. Burke K. A., Greenbowe T. J. and Windschitl M. A., (1998), Developing and using conceptual computer animations for chemistry instruction, J. Chem. Educ., 75(12), 1658–1660.
17. Busch T., (1995), Gender differences in self-efficacy and attitudes toward computers, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 12(2), 147–158.
18. Cakiroglu J., Capa-Aydin Y. and Woolfolk-Hoy A., (2012), Science teachinf efficacy beliefs, in Fraser B. J., Tobin K. and McRobbie C. J. (ed.), Second international handbook of science education, New York, NY: Springer, vol. 24, pp. 477–495.
19. Cavanaugh T. and Cavanaugh C., (1996), Learning science with science fiction films. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Florida Association of Science Teachers, Key West, FL. Retrieved from the ERIC database. (ED411157) computer-driven laser videodiscs. J. Chem. Educ., 62, 514–515.
20. Chou C., (2003), Incidences and correlates of internet anxiety among high school teachers in Taiwan, Comput. Hum. Behav., 19(6), 731–749.
21. Chyung S. Y., (2007), Age and gender differences in online behavior, self-efficacy, and academic performance, Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 8(3), 213–222.
22. Coleman S. L. and Gotch A. J., (1998), Spatial perception skills of chemistry students, J. Chem. Educ., 75, 206–209.
23. Collins A. and Halverson R., (2009), Rethinking education in the age of technology: the digital revolution and the schools, New York: Teachers College Press.
24. Compeau D. R. and Higgins C. A., (1995), Computer self-efficacy: development of a measure and initial test, MIS Quart., 189–211.
25. De Jong O., Blonder R. and Oversby J. P., (2013), How to balance chemistry education between observing of phenomena and thinking in models, in Eilks I. and Hofstein A. (Ed.), Chemistry education: A practical guide and textbook for teachers, teacher trainees and student teachers, Rotterdam: SENSE, pp. 97–126.
26. Dori Y. J. and Hameiri M., (2003), Multidimensional analysis system for quantitative chemistry problems: symbol, macro, micro, and process aspects. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 40(3), 278–302.
27. Ebenezer J. V., (2001), A hypermedia environment to explore and negotiate students’ conceptions: animation of the solution process of table salt, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 10(1), 73–92.
28. Ferk V. and Yrtacnik M., (2003), Students' understanding of molecular structure representations, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25, 1227–1245.
29. Flick L. and Bell R., (2000), Preparing tomorrow's science teaches to use technology: guidelines for science educators, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 1(1), Retrieved from: http://www.citejournal.org/vol1/iss1/currentissues/science/article1.htm.
30. Garcia-Martinez J., (2010), Chemistry 2.0: creating online communities, Chem. Int.,32(4), 4–7.
31. Gelder J. I., Liu C. F. and O’Donnell T. J., (1980), A 3-dimensional animated videocassette on the unit cell, J. Chem. Educ., 57, 590.
32. Gibson S., Dembo M. H., (1984), Teacher efficacy: a construct validation, J. Educ. Psychol., 76, 569–582.
33. Glaser B. and Strauss A., (1967), The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research, New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
34. Glesne C., (2006), Becoming qualitative researchers: an introduction, 3rd edn, New York: Pearson Education, Inc.
35. Goll J. G. and Woods B. J., (1999), Teaching chemistry using the movie Apollo 13, J. Chem. Educ., 76(4), 506–508.
36. Guskey T. R., (1981), Measurement of the responsibility teachers assume for academic successes and failures in the classroom, J. Teach. Educ., 32, 44–51.
37. Guskey T. R., (1988), Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation of instructional innovation, Teach. Teach. Educ., 4, 63–69.
38. Guskey T. R. and Passaro P. D., (1994), Teacher efficacy: a study of construct dimensions, Am. Educ. Res. J., 31, 627–643.
39. Guzey S. S. and Roehrig G. H., (2009), Teaching science with technology: case studies of science teachers’ development of technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 25–45.
40. Hagen B. J., (2002), Lights, camera, interaction: presentation programs and the interactive visual experience, Paper presented at the Society for Information Technology and Teacher Education International Conference, Nashville, TN. Retrieved from the ERIC database.
41. Hakerem G., Dobrynina G. and Shore L., (1993), The effect of interactive, three dimensional, high speed simulations on high school science students’ conceptions of the molecular structure of water, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Research in Science Teaching, Atlanta, GA. Retrieved from the ERIC database (ED362390).
42. Hammond T. C. and Manfra M. M., (2009), Giving, prompting, making: aligning technology and pedagogy within TPACK for social studies instruction, Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(2), 160–185.
43. Hartzel K., (2003), How self-efficacy and gender issues affect software adoption and use, Commun. ACM, 46(9), 167–171.
44. Jang S.-J. and Tsai M.-F., (2012), Exploring the TPACK of Taiwanese elementary mathematics and science teachers with respect to use of interactive whiteboards, Comput. Educ., 59(2), 327–338.
45. Jimoyiannis A., (2010), Designing and implementing an integrated technological pedagogical science knowledge framework for science teachers professional development, Comput. Educ., 55(3), 1259–1269.
46. Johnstone A. H., (1991), Why is science difficult to learn? Things are seldom what they seem, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 7, 75–83.
47. Kapon S., Ganiel U. and Eylon B.-S., (2009), Scientific argumentation in public physics lectures: bringing contemporary physics into high-school teaching, Phys. Educ., 44(1), 33.
48. Karsten R. and Roth R. M., (1998), Computer self-efficacy: a practical indicator of student computer competency in introductory IS courses, Inf. Sci., 1(3), 61–68.
49. Kelly R. M. and Jones L. L., (2007), Exploring how different features of animations of sodium chloride dissolution affect students’ explanations, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 16(5), 413–429.
50. Koehler M. J., Mishra P. and Yahya K., (2007), Tracing the development of teacher knowledge in a design seminar: integrating content, pedagogy and technology. Comput. Educ., 49(3), 740–762.
51. Koh J. H. L., Chai C. S. and Tsai C. C., (2010), Examining the technological pedagogical content knowledge of Singapore pre-service teachers with a large-scale survey, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 26(6), 563–573.
52. Kozma R. B. and Russell J., (1997), Multimedia and understanding: expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 34, 949–968.
53. Kumar D. D., (1991), Hypermedia: a tool for STS education? Bull. Sci. Technol. Soc., 11, 331–332.
54. Kumar D. D., Smith P. J., Helgeson S. L. and White A. L., (1994), Advanced technologies as educational tools in science: concepts, applications, and issues. Columbus, OH: National Center for Science Teaching and Learning.
55. Laroche L. H., Wulfsberg G. and Young B., (2003), Discovery videos: a safe, tested, time-efficient way to incorporate discovery-laboratory experiments into the classroom, J. Chem. Educ., 80(8), 962–966.
56. Lee M. H. and Tsai C. C., (2010), Exploring teachers’ perceived self efficacy and technological pedagogical content knowledge with respect to educational use of the World Wide Web, Instr. Sci., 38, 1–21.
57. Lichter J., (2012), Using YouTube as a platform for teaching and learning solubility rules, J. Chem. Educ., 89(9), 1133–1137.
58. Lim C. K., (2001), Computer self-efficacy, academic self-concept, and other predictors of satisfaction and future participation of adult distance learners, American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 41–51.
59. Marakas G. M., Mun Y. Y. and Johnson R. D., (1998), The multilevel and multifaceted character of computer self-efficacy: toward clarification of the construct and an integrative framework for research, Inform. Syst. Res., 9(2), 126–163.
60. Marcano A. V., Williamson V. M., Ashkenazi G., Tasker R. and Williamson K. C., (2004), The use of video demonstrations and particulate animation in general chemistry, J. Sci. Educ. Technol., 13(3), 315–323.
61. Mayer R. E., (1997), Multimedia learning: are we asking the right questions? Educ. Psychol.,32, 1–19.
62. Mazer J. P., Murphy R. E. and Simonds C. J., (2007), I'll see you on “Facebook”: the effects of computer-mediated teacher self-disclosure on student motivation, affective learning, and classroom climate, Commun. Educ.,56(1), 1–17.
63. Mazer J. P., Murphy R. E. and Simonds C. J., (2009), The effects of teacher self-disclosure via Facebook on teacher credibility. Learn., Media Technol., 34, 175–183.
64. Michel E., Roebers C. M. and Schneider W., (2007), Educational films in the classroom: increasing the benefit, Learn. Instr., 17, 172–183.
65. Mishra P. and Koehler M. J., (2006), Technological pedagogical content knowledge: a framework for integrating technology in teacher knowledge, Teach. Coll. Rec., 108(6), 1017–1054.
66. Nienhowe E. J. and Nash E. G., (1971), Using video tapes to teach instrumentation in organic chemistry, J. Chem. Educ.,48, 141.
67. Niess M. L., (2005), Preparing teachers to teach science and mathematics with technology: developing a technology pedagogical content knowledge, Teach. Teach. Educ., 21, 509–523.
68. Niess M. L., (2011), Investigating TPACK: knowledge growth in teaching with technology, J. Educ. Comput. Res., 44, 299–317.
69. O’Sullivan P. B., Hunt S. K. and Lippert L. R., (2004), Mediated immediacy: a language of affiliation in a technological age, J. Lang. Soc. Psychol., 23, 464–490.
70. Own Z. and Wong K. P., (2000), The application of scaffolding theory on the elemental school acid – basic chemistry web, Paper presented at the International Conference on Computers in Education/International Conference on Computer-Assisted Instruction (ICCE/ICCAI), Taipei, Taiwan. Retrieved from the ERIC database (ED454827).
71. Pajares F., (1993), Preservice teachers' beliefs: a focus for teacher education, Action Teach. Educ., 15, 45–54.
72. Pajares F., (1996), Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings, Rev. Educ. Res., 66, 543–578.
73. Pekdag B., (2010), Kimya ögreniminde alternatif yollar: animasyon, simülasyon, video ve multimedya ile ögrenme (Alternative methods in learning chemistry: learning with animation, simulation, video and multimedia), J. Turk. Sci. Educ., 7(2), 79–110.
74. Pekdag B. and Le Maréchal J.-F., (2010), An explanatory framework for chemistry education: the two-world model, Educ. Sci., 35(157), 84–99.
75. Roberts G., (2003), Teaching using the web: conceptions and approaches from a phenomenographic perspective, Instr. Sci., 31(1), 127–150.
76. Rouda R. H., (1973), Student-produced videotapes in a physical chemistry laboratory course, J. Chem. Educ.50, 126–127.
77. Russell A. A. and Mitchell B. L., (1979), The use of videotapes in large lab courses, J. Chem. Educ., 56, 753–754.
78. Sanger M. J. and Greenbowe T. J., (1997), Students’ misconceptions in electrochemistry: current flow in electrolyte solutions and salt bridge, J. Chem. Educ., 74, 819–823.
79. Sanger M. J., Phelps A. J. and Fienhold J., (2000), Using a computer animation to improve students’ conceptual understanding of a can-crushing demonstration, J. Chem. Educ., 77(11), 1517–1520.
80. Sanger M. J., Campbell E., Fekler J. and Spencer C., (2007), Concept learning versus problem solving: does particle motion have an effect? J. Chem. Educ., 84(5), 875.
81. Schunk D. H. and Meece K.L., (2006), Self-efficacy development in adolescence, in Pajares F. and Urdan T. (ed.), Self-efficacy beliefs of adolescents. Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 71–96.
82. Shulman L. S., (1986), Those who understand: knowledge growth in teaching. Educ. Res., 15(5), 4–14.
83. Slabaugh W. H. and Hatch C. V., (1958), General chemistry via television, J. Chem. Educ., 35, 95–96.
84. Thompson A. and Mishra P., (2007), Breaking news: TPCK becomes TPACK! J. Comput. Teacher Educ., 24, 38–39.
85. Thompson R., Compeau D. and Higgins C., (2006), Intentions to use information technologies: an integrative model, Journal of Organizational and End User Computing (JOEUC), 18(3), 25–46.
86. Torkzadeh G. and Van Dyke T. P., (2002), Effects of training on Internet self-efficacy and computer user attitudes, Comput. Hum. Behav., 18(5), 479–494.
87. Tschannen-Moran M. and Woolfolk-Hoy A., (2001), Teacher efficacy: capturing an elusive construct, Teach. Teach. Educ., 17, 783–805.
88. Tschannen-Moran M., Woolfolk-Hoy A. and Hoy W. K., (1998), Teacher efficacy: its meaning and measure, Rev. Educ. Res., 68, 202–248.
89. Tuvi-Arad I. and Blonder R., (2010), Continuous symmetry & chemistry teachers: learning advanced chemistry content through novel visualization tools, Chem. Educ. Res. Pract., 11, 48–58.
90. Usher E. L. and Pajares F., (2008), Sources of self-efficacy in school: critical review of the literature and future directions, Rev. Educ. Res., 78, 751–796.
91. Venkatesh V. and Davis F. D., (1996), A model of the antecedents of perceived ease of use: development and test, Decision Sci., 27(3), 451–481.
92. Voogt J., Fisser P., Pareja Roblin N., Tondeur J. and van Braak J., (2013), Technological pedagogical content knowledge – a review of the literature, J. Comput. Assist. Learn., 29(2), 109–121, DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2729.2012.00487.x.
93. Web 2.0., (2013, March 11), in Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 09:45, March 12, 2013, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_2.0&oldid=543462243.
94. Williamson V. M. and Abraham M. R., (1995), The effects of computer animation on the particulate mental models of college chemistry students, J. Res. Sci. Teach., 32(5), 521–534.
95. Williamson V. M. and Jose T. J., (2008), The effects of a two-year molecular visualization experience on teachers' attitudes, content knowledge, and spatial ability, J. Chem. Educ., 85, 718–723.
96. Woolfolk-Hoy A. and Davis H. A., (2006), Teacher self-efficacy and its influence on the achievement of adolescents, in Pajares F. and Urdan T. (ed.), Self-efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents, Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing, pp. 117–137.
97. Woolfolk Hoy A. W., Hoy W. K., and Davis H. A. (2009), Teachers' self-efficacy beliefs. In K. R. W. A. Wigfield (Ed.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of motivation at school, New York, Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group, pp. 627–653.
98. Yang E., Andre T., Greenbowe T. J. and Tibell L., (2003), Spatial ability and the impact of visualization/animation on learning electrochemistry, Int. J. Sci. Educ., 25(3), 329–349.
99. Zahn C., Barquero B. and Schwan S., (2004), Learning with hyperlinked videos – design criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual hypermedia, Learn. Instr.14(3), 275–291.
100. Zimmerman J. B., (2000), Self-efficacy: an essential motive to learn. Educ. Psychol., 25, 82–91.

---