10.1145/3313831.3376845acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedings
research-article

Instructional Video Design: Investigating the Impact of Monologue- and Dialogue-style Presentations

ABSTRACT

Instructional videos are frequently used in online courses and websites. Such videos may include an instructor delivering a monologue-style presentation, or alternatively, engaging in a dialogue with a student who appears in the video alongside of the instructor. We compared three instructional video designs (N = 77), including monologue and dialogue style presentations. To obtain a comprehensive view of the impact of video design, we used a variety of measures, including eye tracking data, learning gains, self-efficacy, cognitive load, social presence, and interest. Despite eye tracking data showing that participants in speaker-visible conditions spent significantly less time on the domain content, learning and related variables were similar in all three conditions, a result we confirmed with Bayesian statistics that provided substantial evidence for the null model. Altogether, we provide evidence that learning and interest are not enhanced by a dialogue-style presentation or visual presence of the instructor. However, further work is needed to investigate the effect of other domains, speaker persona and saliency, and configuration of the speakers in the instructional video.

References

  1. Richard A. Abrams and Shawn E. Christ. 2003. Motion Onset Captures Attention. Psychological Science 14, 5 (2003), 427--432.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. A. B. Adcock and R. N. Van Eck. 2005. Reliability and factor structure of the Attitude Toward Tutoring Agent Scale (ATTAS). Journal of Interactive Learning Research 16, 2 (2005), 195--212.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. I. E. Allen and J. Seaman. 2017. Digital learning compass: Distance education enrollment report 2017. Technical Report. Babson College/eLiterate/WCET, Wellesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Elisha Babad. 2007. Teachers' Nonverbal Behavior and its Effects on Students. 201--261.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Albert Bandura. 1982. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist 37, 2 (02 1982), 122--147.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Tony Bates. 2018. The 2017 national survey of online learning in Canadian post-secondary education: methodology and results. International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 15, 29 (2018).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Eta S Berner and Barbara Adams. 2004. Added value of video compared to audio lectures for distance learning. International Journal of Medical Informatics 73, 2 (2004), 189 -- 193.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Michelene T. H. Chi, Seokmin Kang, and David L. Yaghmourian. 2017. Why students learn more from dialogue- than monologue-videos: Analyses of peer interactions. Journal of the Learning Sciences 26, 1 (2017), 10--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Michelene T. H. Chi and Marguerite Roy. 2010. How Adaptive Is an Expert Human Tutor?. In Intelligent Tutoring Systems, Vincent Aleven, Judy Kay, and Jack Mostow (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 401--412.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Tiphaine Colliot and Éric Jamet. 2018. Understanding the effects of a teacher video on learning from a multimedia document: An eye-tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development 66, 6 (01 Dec 2018), 1415--1433.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. C. Connolly, E. Murphy, and S. Moore. 2009. Programming anxiety amongst computing students -- A key in the retention debate? IEEE Transactions on Education 51, 1 (2009), 52--56.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Scotty D. Craig, Michelene T. H. Chi, and Kurt VanLehn. 2009. Improving classroom learning by collaboratively observing human tutoring videos while problem solving. Journal of educational psychology 101, 4 (11 2009), 779--789.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Scotty D. Craig, Jeremiah Sullins, Amy Witherspoon, and Barry Gholson. 2006. The Deep-Level-Reasoning Question Effect: The Role of Dialogue and Deep-Level-Reasoning Questions During Vicarious Learning. Cognition and Instruction 24, 4 (2006), 565--591.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. Stefan Van der Stigchel, Artem V. Belopolsky, Judith C. Peters, Jasper G. Wijnen, Martijn Meeter, and Jan Theeuwes. 2009. The limits of top-down control of visual attention. Acta Psychologica 132, 3 (2009), 201 -- 212.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Tricia Donovan, Tony Bates, Jeff Seaman, Denis Mayer, Éric Martel, Ross Paul, Brian Desbiens, Vivian Forssman, and Russ Poulin. 2019. Tracking Online and Distance Education in Canadian Universities and Colleges: 2018. Technical Report. Canadian Digital Learning Research Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. David M. Driscoll, Scotty D. Craig, Barry Gholson, Matthew Ventura, Xiangen Hu, and Arthur C. Graesser. 2003. Vicarious Learning: Effects of Overhearing Dialog and Monologue-like Discourse in a Virtual Tutoring Session. Journal of Educational Computing Research 29, 4 (2003), 431--450.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Andrew T. Duchowski, Krzysztof Krejtz, Izabela Krejtz, Cezary Biele, Anna Niedzielska, Peter Kiefer, Martin Raubal, and Ioannis Giannopoulos. 2018. The Index of Pupillary Activity: Measuring Cognitive Load Vis-à-Vis Task Difficulty with Pupil Oscillation.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Q. Dunsworth and R. K. Atkinson. 2007. Fostering multimedia learning of science: Exploring the role of an animated agent's image. Computers & Education 49, 3 (2007), 677--690.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. B. Gholson, A. Witherspoon, B. Morgan, J. K. Brittingham, R. Coles, A. C. Graesser, J. Sullins, and S. D Craig. 2009. Exploring the deep-level reasoning questions effect during vicarious learning among eighth to eleventh graders in the domains of computer literacy and Newtonian physics. Instructional Science 37, 5 (2009), 487--493.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  20. Philip J. Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin. 2014. How Video Production Affects Student Engagement: An Empirical Study of MOOC Videos. In Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference ([email protected] '14). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 41--50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Hansch, C. Newman, L. Hillers, T. Schildhauer, K. McConachie, and P. Schmidt. 2015. Video and online learning: Critical reflections from the field. HIIG Discussion Paper Series 2015, 2 (2015), 1--34.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Helen M. Hendy, Nancy Schorschinsky, and Barbara Wade. 2014. Measurement of math beliefs and their associations with math behaviors in college students. Psychological assessment 26, 4 (12 2014), 1225--1234.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. B. Homer, J. Plass, and L. Blake. 2008. The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Journal of Educational Psychology 24, 3 (2008), 786--797.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Andrew F. Jarosz and Jennifer Wiley. 2014. What Are the Odds? A Practical Guide to Computing and Reporting Bayes Factors. Journal of Problem Solving 7, 1 (2014).Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. JASP Team. 2019. JASP (Version 0.10.2)[Computer software]. (2019). https://jasp-stats.org/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  26. Tony Jenkins. 2002. On the difficulty of learning to program. In Proc. 3rd Ann. Conf. HEA Learning Teaching Support Netw. 53--58.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Melanie Keller, Anita Hoy, Goetz Thomas, and Anne Frenzel. 2015. Teacher Enthusiasm: Reviewing and Redefining a Complex Construct. Educational Psychology Review 28 (12 2015).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. René F. Kizilcec, Jeremy N. Bailenson, and Charles J. Gomez. 2015. The instructor's face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology 107, 3 (08 2015), 724--739.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. René F. Kizilcec, Kathryn Papadopoulos, and Lalida Sritanyaratana. 2014. Showing face in video instruction: Effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, NY, NY, USA, 2095--2102.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Thomas Kosch, Mariam Hassib, Pawel W. Woundefinedniak, Daniel Buschek, and Florian Alt. 2018. Your Eyes Tell: Leveraging Smooth Pursuit for Assessing Cognitive Workload. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article Paper 436, 13 pages.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Jimmie Leppink, Fred Paas, Cees P. M. Van der Vleuten, Tamara Van Gog, and Jeroen J. G. Van Merriënboer. 2013. Development of an instrument for measuring different types of cognitive load. Behavior Research Methods 45, 4 (01 Dec 2013), 1058--1072.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A. Lyons, S. Reysen, and L. Pierce. 2012. Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Computers in Human Behaviour 28 (2012), 181--186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. R. E. Mayer. 2014. Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles (2 ed.). Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 345--368", booktitle = "The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard E. Mayer, Sherry Fennell, Lindsay Farmer, and Julie Campbell. 2004. A personalization effect in multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in conversational style rather than formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology 96, 2 (06 2004), 389--395.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Richard E. Mayer and Roxana Moreno. 1998. A Split-Attention Effect in Multimedia Learning: Evidence for Dual Processing Systems in Working Memory. Journal of Educational Psychology 90, 2 (1998), 312--320.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. R. E. Mayer, K. Sobko, and P. D. Mautone. 2003. Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 2 (06 2003), 419--425.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. R. Moreno, R. E. Mayer, H. A. Spires, and J.C. Lester. 2001. The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: Do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents? Cognition and Instruction 19, 2 (2001), 177--213.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  38. Kasia Muldner, Rachel Lam, and Michelene T. H. Chi. 2014. Comparing Learning from Observing and from Human Tutoring. Journal of Educational Psychology 106, 1 (2014), 69--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  39. D. A. Muller, J. Bewes, M. D. Sharma, and P Reimann. 2008. Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 24 (2008), 144--155.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Derek A. Muller, Manjula D. Sharma, John Eklund, and Peter Reimann. 2007. Conceptual change through vicarious learning in an authentic physics setting. Instructional Science 35, 6 (01 Nov 2007), 519--533.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Daniel S. Quintana and Donald R. Williams. 2018. Bayesian alternatives for common null-hypothesis significance tests in psychiatry: a non-technical guide using JASP. BMC Psychiatry 18, 1 (07 Jun 2018), 178.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. J. Rotgans and H. Schmidt. 2011. Situational interest and academic achievement in the active-learning classroom. Learning and Instruction 21, 1 (2011), 58--67.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. Dale H. Schunk and Antoinette R. Hanson. 1985. Peer models: Influence on children's self-efficacy and achievement. Journal of educational psychology 77, 3 (06 1985), 313--322.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  44. Johnny van Doorn, Don van den Bergh, Udo Bohm, Fabian Dablander, Koen Derks, Tim Draws, Alexander Etz, Nathan J Evans, Quentin F Gronau, Max Hinne, and et al. 2019. The JASP Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting a Bayesian Analysis. (Jan 2019).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. T. van Gog, I. Verveer, and L. Verveer. 2014. Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model's face. Computers & Education 72 (2014), 323--327.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. M. van Wermeskerken, S. Ravensbergen, and T. van Gog. 2018. Effects of instructor presence in video modeling examples on attention and learning. Computers in Human Behavior 89 (2018), 430--438.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  47. M. van Wermeskerken and T. van Gog. 2017. Seeing the instructor's face and gaze in demonstration video examples affects attention allocation but not learning. Computers & Education 113 (2017), 98--112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. J. Wang and P. D. Antonenko. 2017. Instructor presence in instructional video: Effects on visual attention, recall, and perceived learning. Computers in Human Behavior 71 (2017), 78--89.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Ning Wang, W. Lewis Johnson, Richard E. Mayer, Paola Rizzo, Erin Shaw, and Heather Collins. 2008. The politeness effect: Pedagogical agents and learning outcomes. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 66, 2 (2008), 98 -- 112.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. K. Wilson, M. Martinez, C. Mills, S. D'Mello, D. Smilek, and E. Risko. 2018. Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning. Computers & Education 122 (2018), 205--220.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Supplemental Material

a716-lee-presentation.mp4

Index Terms

  1. Instructional Video Design: Investigating the Impact of Monologue- and Dialogue-style Presentations

      Comments

      Login options

      Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

      Sign in

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      HTML Format

      View this article in HTML Format .

      View HTML Format
      About Cookies On This Site

      We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

      Learn more

      Got it!