This is not the front page

Using Videos to Explain Complex Information

Instance Description

When it comes to learning, there is no “one size fits all” approach. So for your online, hybrid, or residential course, it is important to incorporate a range of modalities so that students have multiple ways to engage and learn. For example, in addition to lectures, group discussions, and other collaborative activities, leveraging videos to explain complex material is especially effective. In fact, it is widely accepted that through good design, videos can help illuminate abstract and hard to visualize phenomena (Brame, 2016). Even more, videos not only support learning but can transform typically passive learning experiences by having students listen and respond to content, produce their own videos, and analyze arguments (Sherer & Shea, 2011). In alignment with pedagogical methods, videos can improve learning outcomes by presenting information in an engaging manner, drawing learners’ attention to the subject matter, and transforming their learning into an active experience (Yousef, Chatti, & Schroeder, 2014). 

Image
close up of 2 grapes on a tooth pick suspended from a rope
Photo Credit

Credit: © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

Related Topics

See it in Practice

Credit: Metallic Glass by A. Kimmel © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

So we've been talking about what is Material Science and Engineering. And in this demonstration, I would like to show you an example of how we manipulate materials. Except here, what I'm going to do is I'm actually only going to manipulate the physical structure of the material. I'm not going to change the chemistry.

And so what I have in front of you is a couple of pieces of stainless steel. And here on my left is stainless steel as we all know and love and use in everyday life. And to show what happens when I change physical structure, we're going to do sort of a thought experiment. And so what I have in my hand here is a ball bearing. And I'm going to, in a minute, drop this ball bearing and let it hit the piece of steel. But before we do that, let's think about what's going to happen.

So as I drop the ball, it has kinetic energy, it's going to strike the surface. And that energy is going to be transferred into the surface. And what's going to happen is that this piece of stainless steel is going to receive that energy by deforming. And that deformation is made possible by a movement of dislocations. And the best way that I can sort of explain this is to try to pass my knuckles past one another. OK. When I try to do this there's a little bit of energy I have to overcome. But once I do that, they slide pretty nicely. All right. That's dislocation motion in metals.

And so what's going to happen is as this ball hits the surface, the dislocations are going to move, and that's going to absorb energy. That energy that's absorbed is no longer going to be in the ball bearing. And so as a consequence, the ball bearing will bounce but not very far. So let's see that in action.

Pretty boring. All right. So now what I'm going to do is I'm going to take this piece of metal, which we've previously described as being crystalline. And I'm going to change that crystalline nature too amorphous. So the opposite of crystalline is amorphous. Crystalline, I have periodic arrangements of atoms, very ordered structure, every atom looks like every other atom. Think of a marching band, marching in line. Now what I'm going to do is I'm going to take this piece of steel and I'm going to melt it so it's a liquid. And then instead of allowing it to cool slowly to equilibrium, I'm going to cool it at thousands of degrees per second. And in doing that, I'm going to freeze in this amorphous structure.

An amorphous structure would be random chaotic arrangements of atoms. So that no two atoms look the same in terms of their neighborhood and the neighboring atoms. And the most obvious example of an amorphous material is window glass. So window glass is a solid with an amorphous structure.

So now we're going to do the exact same experiment. I'm going to drop the ball but now it's going to land on a piece of this amorphous metal or what we call metallic glass. And let's see how that changes the behavior.

So now since this material is amorphous, the dislocation movement mechanism is no longer present. And so as a consequence, there's no really easy way to transfer the energy from that ball into the surface of that material. And so as a consequence, more of the energy goes back into the ball. And so the ball continues to bounce and bounce and bounce. And so this metallic glass or amorphous metal is used in things like golf clubs, racquetball rackets, recreational items. And obviously here what I'm trying to do is, well if I'm hitting the ball with something, and less of the energy is going in to the object that does the hitting, and more of that energy goes into the ball, the balls going to go further.

Video allows students to observe the behaviors of specific materials. Seeing the ball respond differently to materials which look alike illuminates the impact of underlaying structure, making it easier to grasp the concept. Even if the chemical structures involved were depicted in a drawing, the impact of the structures to dislocation in motion is not intuitive, so actually demonstrating the behavior helps us to understand and retain the concept. This video augments the text in the course by adding another modality that enables a deeper understanding. The fact that the instructor is performing the demonstration himself encourages student engagement and increases instructor presence.

On a practical level, recording a demonstration eliminates having a large class crowd around the speaker trying to see and hear. In addition, a recording can be made of a demonstration located away from the classroom or of something that occurs rarely.

Considerations

Accessibility

  • Captions and transcripts need to be provided for videos.
  • It is also important to verbally describe what is being done.
     

Other

Videos can be uploaded directly to Canvas using the Kaltura Integration (LTI) or uploaded to YouTube or Kaltura and then placed in Canvas with an embed code.

Contributor(s)

Lesson 5 Failure Mechanisms part 3 video (27:09 min)

Credit: T. Palmer © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

A presentation recorded in the studio produces a polished resource that can be used to share knowledge and content and provide an opportunity for students to review the material as often as needed to ensure comprehension. Professor Todd Palmer has recorded all his lectures for a course on Materials Science. Viewers can see the presentation and the instructor along with the laser pointer motion directing student attention. Slides are shown full screen if there is hard-to-see detail, but otherwise, the instructor is present in the video so that students can see facial expressions and gestures and form a connection with the instructor. The demonstrated intellectual mastery inspires confidence in the instructor’s knowledge. Online and hybrid course applications are obvious, but this practice can also be used in a residential course for topics that benefit from review or when an instructor is traveling. Additionally, video may be assigned for viewing outside of resident class time in order to reserve some class time for engagement in active learning.

This technique is best undertaken by dynamic presenters who create and hone lectures to present foundational information in a highly organized and inspirational format.

Considerations

Accessibility

  • Captioning is required, and transcripts allow students to read content instead of, or in addition to, viewing.  
  • Audio descriptions of the visuals might be needed if accommodation is requested.
     

Other

  • If you have a lot of content, consider breaking videos into short segments.  
  • Anything an instructor shows on a computer can be shown on the screen. For example, programming software, images, annotations or presentation software in addition to PowerPoint.    
  • Working with a videographer will produce high-quality, professional results. 

Contributor(s)

Credit: PNG 301 Exam 1 Review © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 

ALEX: So here we're gonna be working on question two for the midterm review. In this case, we're going to be finding stock tank oil in place for a reservoir. We're gonna be basically given four different data points in the reservoir regions a B C and D. The values are listed here, so you have a saturation of oil, which is SO. You have your net pay zone which is HN. Your gross pay zone, which is HG. Your oil formation volume factor which is BO. And you have your porosity which is phi.

So in this case we're gonna be doing two different methods. We're gonna be doing volumetric method, which you'll see first, and then you're gonna see iso-contour method. And this will give you an example of why one way may be better than the other way and how to approach a problem like this. And this is a very common problem in reservoir engineering because you're not able to drill a well in every single location you want to. It cost money and so you have to work with data you already have in the reservoir. And so you have to make sure you understand how to use those values properly. Um so in this case, like I said we have these values given and so what I'm gonna do first is calculate the average values. So basically for a saturation of oil for example, I'll add all the SOs up and just divide by four because there's four regions. So and it's the same thing for each property so I'm just going to give you those averages right here. So the saturation of oil average is going to be 70%. Our net pay zone average is going to be 72.5 feet. Our gross pay zone average is going to be 112.5 feet. Our formation volume factor of oil average is gonna be 1.2. And our porosity average is going to be 16.2%.
 
Using these values, we can then find what our stock tank oil is in place using a few equations. So the first equation I want to talk about is equation 4.03 that you'll find in your notes. This is the gross volume of your pay zone. Which is going to be and 43,560, what I'm about to write, is just a unit conversion to go from acres to feet. So one acre equals 43,560 feet squared. So we have 43,560. And then we're multiplying by our area of our reservoir which is forty acres. So basically this is like for region A, B, C and D it's encompassed within that. And so we multiply that by here because we basically want to get that into feet squared. So we can calculate the volume. And then we're gonna multiply by our gross pay zone.

You might ask like what's the difference between gross pay and net net pay zone. You'll notice that you'll learn like in classes like 440, PNG 440 for example, you may have like a certain water saturation and a part of your pay zone, which really you won't be able to get much production from, or it's not very good for to recover from, so you don't really include that in your net pay zone, but it's including your gross pay zone. And so we multiplied by our gross pay zone average. Which is the 112.5. So when we do that, we are going to get 43,560 times 40 times HG average, which is 1 12.5. Now we will be using this, I'm just gonna keep it as it is so I can show you how things cancel. We're gonna then plug this in to an equation that solves for our stock tank oil in place. Which this is going to be equation 4.04A in your notes. So that equation is this. Which this is what we just found. And then we're gonna have our net pay zone average. Divided by our gross pay zone average. Multiplied by our porosity average. Multiplied by our oil saturation average. And then we're going to divide this all by 5.615. Like I said, because this right here, when you solve for this, this will be units of feet cubed, and so when we find stock tank oil in place, we want it in terms of barrels, or in this case would be stock tank barrels, because you see I'll divide by a BO. So this will be our BO average. So when you multiply or divide by your Bo average you're basically converting your barrels. It's like stock tank barrels.So you basically want what it would be at your production facility. How much oil you'd have. So this is just gonna be this equation right here divided by this. It's a little, it looks a little off, but it's just your gross volume of your rock. Times your average of net pay zone. Divided by gross pay zone. Times porosity average. Times well oil saturation average. Divided by 5.615. Times formation volume factor average. And when we do this calculation, like I said, these values right are here or just these values right here, just plug it in for them. We find that N, another reason why I kept it like this, as you'll see this HG right here, is the same thing as this  HG, so it cancels. So basically this right here, and this right here, cancel. So that's why I kind of wanted to show it like that. And so, when I write this out, we're going to have 43,560. Times our area in acres, which is 40. Times, we're gonna have our net pay zone average which is going to be 72.5. Then we're going to be multiplying this all by porosity average and oil saturation. So our porosity average is 0.162. Our oil saturation average is 0.7. And we're dividing this by 5.615. Like I said previously, you're using the 5.615 to convert from cubic feet to barrels and then the BOs convert from barrels to stock tank barrels. So you know 5.615 times your BO average which is 1.2. And when we do this calculation, we find that N is going to be equal to 2,132,584.59 STB. This can also be written as 2,132.584 MSTB or 2.132584 MMSTB. So our MM is millions, M is a thousand. And so this is basically what our original oil would be in place if we used volumetric method. And now since we did this, we can talk about iso contour method which is our other method of approach for evaluating different points in the reservoir.

So for this we're going to have an equation 4.05. It's gonna be a little bit different, in this case, we're going to ignore gross volume and gross pay zone. Just like I said it cancels anyway and because how this approach works it's a little weird in terms of having different HGs. Because we're not averaging A, B, C, and D anymore. We're actually gonna find a value for an iso-contour of region A, region B, region C, region D individually.

And so the equation for this we'll be the following. So this could be G or O. This is just in terms of the phase you're working with so in this case we're just working with oil. So we're gonna have porosity times the net pay zone times SO divided by BO. As you can see it's very similar to what N is. It just doesn't include the VGRV or the HG like I said. So in this we can calculate this for region A, B, C, and D. So basically I'll just show you what, how you calculate for region A and it'll be the same way for the other three regions.  

So for ICO of A, it's just going to equal the porosity A, 0.10. The net pay zone for a is 75 feet. The oil saturation is 0.6. And the formation volume factor is 1.2.

When you do this calculation you're going to get that ICOfor region A is 3.075. And now for B it's gonna be the same way, just using Bs values now. It's going to be 10.046. For C, it's going to be 5.250. And for region D, it's going to be 8.727.

And so these are just some, we look at them as constants. So it's a parameter for that region and so once we have these values, we can actually average them together. Kind of like what volumetric did, but now we're doing each region individually instead of like connecting them. So when we do that. It's it over here. We're gonna add all four of these values up. Divided by four. And we  get 6.7745. And similar to how we solved for the N, which is original stock tank oil in place. We had all this information times VGRV. And so like I said, the HN over HG porosity SO BO, it's all part of the ICO except like HG because it cancels.

And so basically what we can do with this, right here, is just plug it in for the N equation. So N is going to equal 43,560 times 40. Because our area is still 40 acres. Times our ICO average, which is the 6.7745. And then we're going to divide by 5.615. Because everything else that's not included here is already calculated for when you compare it to N. So this is going to equal 2,102,206.38 STB. Or you can write it as 2,102.206 MSTB. Or 2.102 MMSTB.

And so as you can see, these values are very close to each other, but there is a main reason why iso-contour method is preferred and you're going to see that with the next example. Because one of each property in each of these regions is gonna be very low to where it's not really shown when you're taking the averages, when you doing the volumetric method. So you're gonna be getting a lot more oil than what you would if you do the iso-contour method. And so I'm going to write those values up now.

Okay, so in this case, we have three regions now and I'm going to show you why that iso-contour method is a lot better than the volumetric method. So in the last case, the numbers were somewhat close. I think it was about 20,000 STB or so different, or in this case it'll be a lot bigger difference.

So we're given region A, B, and C. If you notice like region A, for example, it's porosity is approximately zero percent and region B will have the oil saturation approximately equal to zero percent and region C will have the net pay zone equal to approximately zero feet. And so we can like, just think about in terms of like very small. Like say your porosity is like one times 10 to the negative twelve or something like that, like there may be a little bit of porosity but it's gonna be so little that there'd be such little oil in that area. And you can look at that for all three regions because each have a porosity of zero. But when you're taking the average of all three porosity, as you'll see, it doesn't really mimic or show that you have a zero porosity in one of your regions. And so for when we do our averages, just like before I'll be the same way. Just add all three up and divide by three.

So our oil saturation will be 0.50. Our net pay zone average will be 51.67 feet. Our gross average is 113.33 feet. Our BO average is going to be 1.23 BBL for STB. And our porosity average is going to be .117. So 11.75 percent. And like using equations showed earlier, let's solve the volumetric of oil first. So first like we can use the VGRV which is going to be somewhat similar to this last case. So we're gonna have the unit conversion again of 43,560 times our area which is 40 acres. So our area staying the same for this case, still 40 acres. And then our gross pay zone is going to be a 113. Our average gross pay zone 113.33 feet. And so then when we solve for N. We really, just like before, we're gonna use the average properties again. So we have the VGRV. And then we're going to multiply this by our net pay zone average over our gross pay zone average. So like the 113.33s will cancel. So let us like cancel them right now. And then we're going to multiply by the average porosity and then average oil saturation times 0.50  And then just like before we're gonna divide this by the unit conversion of feet cubed barrels. Which is 5.615, when you divide by 5.615 anyway. And then we're going to multiply by our BO average which is going to be 1.23. And when we do this calculation, you find that your original oil, original stock tank oil in place is going to be 762,583.35 STB. Which before is around two million or so. So let's say like maybe a third or so less or two-thirds less than what it was originally. Now we will see here, in the iso-contour method, when you take each ridge region individually, you'll get a value that's negligible. Basically zero.

So let's do ICO of A just like before it's gonna be like the same process for A, region A, B, and C. So I'll show the calculations for A. So for A it's going to be 70. Because HN is 70. Times our porosity which is approximately zero so like very small. Multiplied by our oil saturation which is going to be 0.75. And then we're going to divide that by our formation volume factor of oil which is 1.2. And so like I said, zero, it's approximately zero for your porosity so this is going to end up being zero. And it'll be the same thing for region B and C. Because as I said, like with B, your oil saturation is approximately zero. So you can say this is also zero. And the same thing with C, your net pay zone is approximately zero so, we can say it's about zero. And then so when you calculate N using the average of your iso-contour, you find that the average of this is just zero plus zero plus zero all divided by three, so it's just zero. So when you're calculating your oil in place using iso-contour method, you're going to have N times your average ICO which is just zero, times like the VGRV term which is the 43,560 times 40. And like I said before the HGs cancels, so we can just ignore that in this case. And then that's just going to be divided by 5.615. So as you can see, this is zero.

And this makes sense too. This is what you should expect for your oil in your reservoir. Just because if region A, neither of these regions have the capability of having any oil present because at region A your porosity is approximately 0% so there will be no room for any fluid volume at all. In region B the oil saturation is approximately zero so it may be all water. So that porosity is 20%. So the water saturation may be a 100% or like 99.99% and so on. And region C, our net pay zone is zero feet, so there is no actual region where there's going to be any oil in terms of producible oil anyway.

And so, as you can see, the zeros are very different than 750 mm stock tank barrels. And so that's why the iso-contour method is a lot more accurate. Because by doing the average volumetric method, you're going to find that there will be oil in this reservoir, but as you can see in each region, there wouldn't be any oil so that's why the ISO contour method is better.

PNG 301: Introduction to Petroleum and Natural Gas Engineering is a fully online course where students are required to solve complex mathematical equations. PNG 301 makes use of the Dutton Institute’s lightboard to record the teaching assistant as he works through a series of practice exam questions. The recordings are made available to the online students as a substitute for an in-person exam review session that is typically offered to students who take the same course in a face-to-face classroom. The recorded session allows the TA to explain why specific equations are used in certain situations and to show how he sets up those equations as he works through to the final solution.

The nature of an asynchronous class makes it difficult to schedule a live review session. These recordings offer the students an opportunity to watch the videos on their own schedule. Another benefit of the recordings is that a student who is struggling with a specific part of the process can rewatch the entire video or click on the accompanying transcript to jump to a specific part of the video.

Considerations

Accessibility

Closed captions and transcripts must be added to all videos.

Contributor(s)

Rutile building video (12:52 min)

Credit: S. Trolier-McKinstry © Penn State is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0

MATSE 400: Crystal Chemistry requires students to build complex 3D models of crystals. In a traditional lab situation, the instructor walks around the room to assist the students while they build the 3D models. The video above provides the online students an opportunity to see the intricate details of the model building process.

Considerations

Accessibility

  • Closed captions and transcripts need to be added for videos.
  • The accompanying audio track should contain specific directions to meet the needs of students who are visually impaired.

Contributor(s)

References/Resources

  • Brame, C. J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE Life Sciences Education, 15(4), es6.1-es6.6. doi:10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125
  • Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56-59. doi:10.1080/87567555.2010.511313
  • Yousef, A. M. F., Chatti, M. A., & Schroeder, U. (2014). Video-based learning: a critical analysis of the research published in 2003-2013 and future visions.

Contributor(s)