=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=None
|storemode=property
|title=Investigating Differences Among the Common Used Video Lecture Types
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-983/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-983
}}
==Investigating Differences Among the Common Used Video Lecture Types==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-983/paper5.pdf
Investigating Differences among the
Commonly Used Video Lecture Styles
Christina Ilioudi Abstract
Department of Informatics Many educational organizations are motivated to create
Ionian University and share instructional videos, but there are no
Corfu, GR-49100 Greece guidelines about the presentation styles. In practice,
cilioudi@gmail.com the presentation style of video lectures ranges from
simple video capturing of classroom teaching, up to
Michail N. Giannakos highly elaborate authoring of video presentations that
Department of Computer and include close-ups and video-cuts of instructors, slides,
Information Science animations, and interactive drawing boards. In
Norwegian University of Science particular, there is limited research about the effects of
and Technology (NTNU) each presentation style on student learning
Trondheim, NO-7491 Norway performance and attitudes. In this work, we examine
michailg@idi.ntnu.no the effects of video presentation styles in supporting
the teaching of mathematics in the secondary
Konstantinos Chorianopoulos education. In addition to a control group that studied
Department of Informatics through a paper-book, two groups of students attended
Ionian University two distinct styles of video lectures: 1) video capture of
Corfu, GR-49100 Greece class teaching (Talking head style), and 2) close-up
choko@ionio.gr video capture of an interactive drawing board with
voice-over (Khan style). The participants of our study
consisted of 36 students (15 boys and 21 girls, 16
Copyright © 2013 for the individual papers by the papers' authors. years old), who received the respective three
Copying permitted only for private and academic purposes.
treatments (paper book, talking head, khan style), over
This volume is published and copyrighted by its editors.
the course of three math modules in three weeks’ time.
WAVe 2013 workshop at LAK’13, April 8, 2013, Leuven, Belgium.
We found that learning effects show up only after the
second week and that the Talking Head style was more
effective than the book for complex topics.
21
Author Keywords to enhance the learning process. For example, Carnegie
Video, talking head lectures, khan style, satisfaction, Melon University has created a low cost system called
playfulness, enjoyment, e-learning, performance “Just-In-Time Lecture”. This system has shown that the
use of video in the educational process has analogous
ACM Classification Keywords results with the traditional classes [9]. In the year
K.3.1 [Computers and Education]: Computer Uses in 2012, there has been a proliferation of Massive Open
Education - Computer-managed instruction (CMI). Online Courses (MOOC), from companies such as
Coursera, Udacity, and EdX. Since there is no single
Introduction standard way or right way of doing a video lecture
Video lectures have been growing in popularity and (Figure 1), it is worth exploring the effects of different
many organizations, universities and open learning styles of video lectures.
systems are employing them as a main- or self-study
medium, such as Coursera, Udacity, EdX, Khan Indeed, videos lectures can take diverse forms and the
Academy, TED, and Video Lectures. Although there is a video lecture style might have effects on important
growing interest and use, the benefits and the educational parameters such as learning performance
drawbacks of each different lecture type have not and enjoyment. One of the most commonly used is the
studied yet. The main goal of our research is to explore talking-head lecture, which is the type used by most of
the effectiveness of different video lectures in teaching the universities (e.g., Stanford, MIT courseware).
mathematics. For this purpose, we produced two Another style of video lecture that is growing in
different kinds of video lectures: 1) Video capturing of a popularity is the Khan academy style (hereinafter Khan
typical class course and 2) video capturing of an style). Therefore, the main research goals of our study
interactive drawing board with voice over. Next, we is to explore the differences among talking head and
employed three groups of students, namely two groups khan video lectures style, and to compare the
for the two kinds of video lecture, as well as one control differences to the traditional paper book that has been
group. In addition to learning performance used for centuries during the self-study of the student.
measurement, we also employed the enjoyment The motivation for study is based on the importance of
construct, which students reported at the end of their enjoyment derived from a teaching method and is in
participation. alignment with previous research [4], who performed a
comparison between two teaching methods.
Research has shown that students benefit from video
based or assisted learning [1], [5], [6]. Specifically Methodology
nowadays with the growth of many and diverse We produced two styles of videos, one with teacher’s
Figure 1. There are many styles of
presenting a video lecture. In this work,
learning systems like Centra and Matherhorn; the use participation (Talking Head) using the traditional green
we focus on the talking head and the of video to enhance the learning process attracts much chalkboard (Figure 2) and the other one with the
interactive drawing board ones which attention. Many educational systems have been teacher’s voice over the interactive drawing board
are popular with iTunes University and developed to use video as the main or secondary tool (Figure 3). In our study, the duration of each video was
the Khan Academy respectively
22
10 minutes. For the talking head style of video lectures, employing the respective treatments (two styles of
the content looks like the traditional lecture and it has video and the paper book). This part of the study was
been a popular video lecture format for many online held three times for each group for three different
videos because it is easy to capture and share without modules of mathematics. Students had ten minutes to
going through a resource intensive video editing post- watch each style of video and the control group to read
production. In these videos the teacher was presenting the respective module from the book. At the end of
a summary of the unit he had taught. For the Khan each time students solved a test according to the unit
Style lecture, the viewer concentrates upon the boards’ they had taught, which lasted twenty minutes. In all
content. Only the teachers’ voice and the exercises are cases, the experimental procedure was very strict with
participated in this kind of video. The video content regard to the time that the students had. For the
Figure 2. Example of Talking Head Video
focuses on what is being written on the board. The implementation of the second part we employed a
bamboo pen was used for the creation of these videos. standard questionnaire which consisted of three
This kind of video is very popular in the Khan Academy questions. The purpose of the questions was to
and Udacity, which was the motivation for this study. In examine the Enjoyment factor (Table 1). Finally, we
both video lecture styles, the teacher was presenting analysed the data with the use of SPSS program. We
the exact same summary of the module he had taught used the Mann-Whitney U Test for the processing
during the normal course hours. because of the small sample.
Thirty-six experimental subjects, 15 boys and 21 girls Results
(16 years old) participated in this study. The students In the following table we summarize the results of our
wrote a pre-test on mathematics before the separation study.
into groups, so that the groups are equivalents in terms
of previous math performance. After the test we had Table 3. Mean values & standard deviations of the 3 types
Figure 3. Example of Khan Style Video three groups with 12 students each with a grade
average in the pre-test of 16.5 out of 20 points. The
Mean (S.D.)
Table 2. The Factors and their definitions presentation of the video took place in the computer Talking Khan Style Paper
laboratory. Every student was watching the 10 minutes Head book
Factor Definition
video on the computer. One group watched the video Enjoyment 2.03 (0.96) 1.97 (0.82) 2.89 (1.15)
with the teacher making a presentation (Talking Head Learning 6.38 (1.52) 6.31 (1.54) 6.26 (1.12)
Enjoyment The degree to which the lecture); another group watched the video with a close- Performance 1
teaching type is up of an interactive board (Khan Style) and the control Learning 6.37 (2.95) 5.89 (2.40) 5.24 (3.04)
perceived to be group browsed through a paper book for the same Performance 2
personally enjoyable amount of time. Learning 7.62 (2.70) 6.51 (2.05) 4.66 (3.50)
Performance 3
Learning The knowledge acquired The study consisted of two parts. In the first part, each
Performance during the treatment. one of the groups studied for their module by
23
To examine potential differences among the three performance. During the first two modules the learning
groups we performed Mann-Whitney U test. As it can performance of the three groups has no significant
be seen from the outcome data in Table 3, students’ difference. However, at the third module the learning
studied at the ‘Paper Book’ group enjoyed the performance of the Talking Head group was
procedure more than the ‘Talking Head’ and the ‘Khan significantly better than the Khan Style group
Style’ groups (p<0,05). In addition, we used Mann- (p<0.05).
Whitney U to test the difference on learning
Table 4. Testing the differences among Talking Head, Khan Style and Paper book using Mann-Whitney U test
Factor Type A Type B Z U P Result
Enjoyment Talking Head Khan Style -0.058 71 0.95 s
i.d.
Talking Head Paper book -2.07 36.5 0.04* s.d.
Khan Style Paper book -2.01 37.5 0.04* s.d.
Learning Talking Head Khan Style -0.38 65.5 0.71 i.d.
Performance 1 Talking Head Paper book -0.17 69 0.86 i.d.
Khan Style Paper book 0.00 72 1.00 i.d.
Learning Talking Head Khan Style -0.99 55 0.32 i.d.
Performance 2 Talking Head Paper book -1.16 52 0.25 i.d.
Khan Style Paper book -0.52 63 0.60 i.d.
Learning Talking Head Khan Style -1.78 41.5 0.08 i.d.
Performance 3 Talking Head Paper book -2.39 31 0.02* s.d.
Khan Style Paper book -1.48 46.5 0.14 i.d.
i.d. Insignificant Difference; s.d. Significant Difference
24
Conclusion and Further Research Moreover, further research should measure the learning
We found significant statistical differences between the performance over more teaching modules than three
tested video styles and there are also some interesting and over more courses than mathematics.
explanations and useful conclusions. Most notably, the
enjoyment measure was reported higher in the control
9 Talking Head
group, who employed a paper-book to study the three
8 Khan Style
modules in mathematics. The familiarity of the students
Paper Book
with paper books might be one explanation of enjoying 7
this medium in comparison to the video medium. 6
Another explanation is that students of the Talking
5
Head group and Khan Style group had not employed
any video before for their self-study. The preference of 4
video styles might depend on previous exposure to 3
them and there might be cultural and personal
2
parameters, which have to be controlled in further
research. In conclusion, further research should pre- 1
test students according to their previous exposure to 0
video lectures and to group them accordingly. Enjoyment Learning Learning Learning
Performance Performance Performance
Actual learning performance was slightly improved 1 2 3
when the students employed the videos in comparison
to the paper book, but this is only after the second
week, which indicates that the students need to
become familiar with new teaching styles. In particular,
Figure 4. Students enjoyed the book because they had control
there was higher performance in the case of the Talking
of browsing, but their performance was higher with the Talking
Head over the Khan Style video lecture. Although we
Head video lecture for complicated mathematic module
hypothetized that the Khan Style might be result in
better performance this was not true. One explanation It is important to note that students watched the videos
is that the students felt more familiar with the Talking linearly and did not have the time to watch the video
Head video lecture. Notably, the improvement in again or reply it. In particular, the use of video did not
learning performance was higher for the last give the opportunity to students to have any interaction
mathematics module, which was the most complicated with it when they were watching the video, in contrast
module of the three. Therefore, there might be an to the paper book treatment group, who was observed
influence of the type of course on the learning to browse through the pages. Therefore, in further
performance across the self-study mediums and video research, we must allow the students to interact with
lectures seem to be superior for complex learning. the videos [2], but this treatment might need more
25
time than the video length. In practice, allowing International Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada,
students to skip through a video should improve their pp. 400–403, 2001.127
learning performance, but might come at the cost of [6] G. Piccoli, R. Ahmad, B. Ives, Web-based virtual
additional time. Despite all these limitations all students learning environments: a research framework and a
preliminary assessment of effectiveness in basic IT
were positive to employ this way of learning and during
skills training, MIS Quarterly 25(4), pp. 401–426,
the interviews at the end of the research we found that
2001.
the use of video in self-study motivates the weak
[7] L. Signor, An exploration into the reactions of
students.
undergraduate students to virtual lectures, Paper
presented at OLT 2003, Queensland, Australia, 2003.
Acknowledgements
[8] J. Williams & M. Fardon, Perpetual connectivity:
The authors would like to express their gratitude to all Lecture recordings and portable media players, In ICT:
of the students for volunteering their time. Our very Providing choices for learners and learning, Proceedings
special thanks go to the math teacher, of the, for his ascilite Singapore 2007.
assistance in our study. We would like also to thank EC [9] D. Zhang, L. Zhou, R. O. Briggs, J. F. Nunamaker,
project for providing the equipment. Jr. Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the
impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness.
References Information & Management 43, p.15–27, 2006.
[1] N.A. Baloian, J.A. Pino, H.U. Hoppe, A
teaching/learning approach to CSCL, in: Proceedings of
the 33rd Hawaii, International Conference on Systems
Sciences, pp. 447– 456, 2000.
[2] K. Chorianopoulos, I. Leftheriotis, and C. Gkonela.
2011. SocialSkip: pragmatic understanding within web
video. In Proceddings of the 9th international
interactive conference on Interactive television
(EuroITV '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 25-28.
[3] 3. G. Friedland & R. Rojas, Anthropocentric Video
Segmentation for Lecture Webcasts, EURASIP Journal
on Image and Video Processing, Volume 2008, Article
ID 195743, 2008.
[4] J. J. Jiang & G. Klein, Expectation-Confirmation
Theory: Capitalizing on Descriptive Power, published in
Handbook of Research on Contemporary Theoretical
Models in Information Systems, pages 18, DOI:
10.4018/978-1-60566-659-4.ch022, 2009.
[5] P. Kumar, S.C. Basu, Student perceptions of virtual
education: an exploratory study, Proceedings of the
2001 Information Resources Management Association
26