Research
Video is entertaining. Video is engaging. But is it effective for learning? We think so. Here are some reasons why.
Video allows us to see what we could not have seen otherwise; hear what was previously unheard. For our purposes, we use the term ‘interactive video’ because video is inherently interactive. J. Martin (2016) explains that video surpasses live teaching or lecture in its active learning capabilities by the mere fact that learners can actively interact with a video: they can rewind and relisten for reinforcement of the content, pause if/when instructed, respond with a comment, even take an embedded quiz. As we continue our discussion of the power of interactive video, we will simply use the word “video” to encompass all of its interactive capabilities.
Based on the Community of Inquiry (CoI) model for online learning (Garrison et al., 2000), the three elements that must be present for an effective learning environment are: teaching presence (TP), cognitive presence (CP), and social presence (SP). Video allows for all three, many times working simultaneously. Both Borup et al. (2012) and Draus et al. (2014) apply the CoI framework to the discussion of video’s role in the online classroom. For Borup et al. (2012), “asynchronous video” can improve social presence, while for Draus et al. (2014), “instructor-generated video” can increase teaching presence, and inevitably encourages social presence.
Community of Inquiry model. From "Community of Inquiry," by Matbury, 2014,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_inquiry#/media/File:Community_of_inquiry_model.svg, CC BY-SA 3.0.
For example, instructor-generated video content, which can range from lecture video to online discussion interaction to feedback on assignments, offers instruction (TP), knowledge acquisition (CP), and community formation (SP). In fact, Draus et al. (2014) present a variety of research indicating that, when instructor-generated video was used, students reported benefits that outweighed those in a face-to-face classroom. Rather than the student feeling distant in the back of a room with the teacher up front, students reported feeling a personal connection with their instructors. In addition, customized video feedback provided students with individualized learning opportunities. And video interactions with both teachers and students in online discussions established community, thereby keeping students engaged and more persistent in the learning process.
Even so, any and all video is not necessarily good video.
Draus et al. (2014) discovered that videos such as PowerPoint presentations with audio narration had limited effectiveness. During their research study, they augmented the PowerPoints with supplemental videos. The data showed that student viewing of video for content delivery replaced PowerPoint viewing altogether. Similarly, Borup et al. (2012) found audio feedback from instructors to be valued more than text due to vocal cues, but that video received significantly better student comments. Responses such as feeling like “he’s just sitting there talking to me” were reflected in an increase in video viewing; but even more interesting were students who reported having
a sense of accountability for their learning and submitting assignments when there was a facial connection (p. 199).
These results further remind us that video’s effectiveness as a pedagogical tool can be limited if restricted to video lecturing, which can “severely underutilize video as a medium” (Hansch
et al., 2015, p. 11). Draus et al. (2014) expanded their study to multiple uses of instructor-generated video in addition to video lectures: weekly video welcome messages, video instructions
for assignments, video discussion posts, and video feedback to students. Similarly, Hansch et al. (2015) offer a list of suggestions expanding video’s use to teachers and students
Fig. 3: Video's affordances for online learning [chart], "Video and Online Learning: Critical Reflections and Findings from the Field," by A. Hansch, L. Hillers, K. McConachie, C. Newman, T. Schildhauer, P. Schmidt, 2015, HIIG Discussion Paper Series(2), p. 11.
alike for “building rapport, going on virtual trips, manipulating time and space, telling stories, motivating learners, showcasing historical footage, conducting demonstrations, using visual juxtaposition, and leveraging multimedia presentations” (see Fig. 3: Video's affordances for online learning). They further recommend using a variety of video types, some of which are less costly to produce (“lightweight or DIY productions”) and more user-friendly; and they provide a comprehensive chart with descriptions, including the webcam capture, recorded seminar, “talking head,” animation, picture-in-picture, and even live video-conferencing (Appendix 1).
Note. Students were asked to rate faculty on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, and 4 = strongly agree.
Beyond these instructor-generated video forms, Draus
et al. (2014) further expand their study to include student videos, specifically VoiceThread (voicethread.com) and YouTube (youtube.com) online discussions. But similar to lecture videos, not all online discussions become more effective simply because they include video. Requirements for interaction are still necessary. Draus et al. (2014) found that students would not leave peer comments in discussion posts when they were optional; or they would default to text or audio responses unless video was required. These are important consideration that might influence student engagement, and inevitably learning, but are not directly tied to video usage.
All three research teams (Borup et al., 2012; Draus et al., 2014; Hansch et al. 2015) point out that there is limited research data that indicates video-enhanced courses directly impact online learning. Draus et al. (2014) present
Figure 1. Student course evaluation (SOP) given in Weeks 9 through 11 of the course. From Draus et al., 2014, p. 246.
minor improvement (3.2%) in grades. However, we are well beyond an age of relying on test scores as accurate measurements of learning. Most educators would agree that short term recall is no guarantee of long-term retention. It is worthy of note that all three research teams (Borup et al., 2012; Draus et al., 2014; Hansch et al. 2015) also come to the conclusion that video use in the online classroom (whether instructor-generated or student interactive discussions or both) does indeed equate to improved student engagement, satisfaction, and perceived learning. For example, see Figure 1. This suggests that it is active learning that provides the opportunity for actual learning. This is also confirmed by the interconnected teaching, cognitive, and social presences as determined by the Community of Inquiry framework (Garrison et al., 2000), upon which the research of Borup et al. (2012) and Draus et al. (2014) are both based. Our premise, then, is that which increases the learning experience correspondingly increases the learning itself.
Video in eLearning is indeed a powerful pedagogical tool. It is time to take advantage of video’s benefits and produce some of our own interactive video experiences within our online learning communities.
References
Borup, J., West, E. W., & Graham, C. (2012). Improving online social presence through asynchronous video. Internet and Higher Education 15(3),
195-203. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2011.11.001
Draus, P. J., Curran, M. J., & Trempus, M. S. (2014). The Influence of Instructor-Generated Video Content on Student Satisfaction with and
Engagement in Asynchronous Online Classes. MERLOT Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 10(2), 240-254. http://jolt.merlot.org/vol10no2/draus_0614.pdf
Garrison, D. R., Anderson, T., & Archer, W. (2000). Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education.
The Internet and Higher Education 2(2-3), 87-105. http://dx.doi:10.1016/S1096-7516(00)00016-6
Hansch, A., Hillers, L., McConachie, K., Newman, C., Schildhauer, T., Schmidt, P. (2015). Video and Online Learning: Critical Reflections and
Findings From the Field. HIIG Discussion Paper Series 2, 1-31. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2577882
Martin, J. (2016, Aug 11). Tips to Promote Creative Learning Online. Presentation at the Distance Teaching & Learning Conference 2016,
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.