Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Comprehension across mediums: the case of text and video

Abstract

Despite the prevalence of educational videos in today’s schools and classrooms, limited work has examined the strategies students use when comprehending videos. The aim of this study is to compare pre-service teachers’ strategy use when they are presented with information via text vis-à-vis via video. The study used a 2 × 2 experimental design with students assigned either to read or view each of two information sources. The study found strategy use to differ across mediums of information presentation, as determined through both self-report and log data. Additionally, comprehension was found to differ according to medium of information presentation, with text conferring an advantage. At the same time, students were found to have limited integration of multiple sources of information, across mediums of information presentation. Conclusions and implications for instruction and future work are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Afflerbach, P., & Cho, B. (2009). Identifying and describing constructively responsive comprehension strategies in new and traditional forms of reading. In S. Israel & G. Duffy (Eds.), Handbook of reading comprehension research (pp. 69–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.

  2. Afflerbach, P., Pearson, P. D., & Paris, S. G. (2008). Clarifying differences between reading skills and reading strategies. The Reading Teacher, 61(5), 364–373.

  3. Behavioral Observation Research Interactive Software. (Version 2.997) [Computer software]. Torino, Italy: Universita di Torino.

  4. Berk, R. A. (2009). Multimedia teaching with video clips: TV, movies, YouTube, and mtvU in the college classroom. International Journal of Technology in Teaching & Learning, 5(1), 1–21.

  5. Best, R. M., Floyd, R. G., & Mcnamara, D. S. (2008). Differential competencies contributing to children’s comprehension of narrative and expository texts. Reading Psychology, 29(2), 137–164.

  6. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111–130.

  7. Caspi, A., Gorsky, P., & Privman, M. (2005). Viewing comprehension: Students’ learning preferences and strategies when studying from video. Instructional Science, 33(1), 31–47.

  8. Chang, K. E., Sung, Y. T., & Chen, I. D. (2002). The effect of concept mapping to enhance text comprehension and summarization. The Journal of Experimental Education, 71(1), 5–23.

  9. Colestock, A., & Sherin, M. G. (2009). Teachers’ sense-making strategies while watching video of mathematics instruction. Journal of Technology and Teacher Education, 17(1), 7–29.

  10. Ding, W., & Marchionini, G. (1998). A study on video browsing strategies. Technical Report, College Park, MD, USA.

  11. Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2012). A critical discussion of deep and surface processing: What it means, how it is measured, the role of context, and model specification. Educational Psychology Review, 24(4), 499–567.

  12. Dinsmore, D. L., & Alexander, P. A. (2016). A multidimensional investigation of deep-level and surface-level processing. The Journal of Experimental Education, 84(2), 213–244.

  13. Duffy, P. (2008). Engaging the YouTube Google-eyed generation: Strategies for using Web 2.0 in teaching and learning. The Electronic Journal of e-Learning, 6(2), 119–130.

  14. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 107–122.

  15. Eason, S. H., Goldberg, L. F., Young, K. M., Geist, M. C., & Cutting, L. E. (2012). Reader–text interactions: How differential text and question types influence cognitive skills needed for reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 515–528.

  16. Ellis, R., & Childs, M. (1999). The effectiveness of video as a learning tool in on-line multimedia modules. Journal of Educational Media, 24(3), 217–223.

  17. Eshet-Alkalai, Y. (2004). Digital literacy: A conceptual framework for survival skills in the digital era. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13(1), 93–106.

  18. Friard, O., & Gamba, M. (2016). BORIS: A free, versatile open-source event-logging software for video/audio coding and live observations. Methods in Ecology Evolution, 7(11), 1325–1330. https://doi.org/10.1111/2041-210X.12584.

  19. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.

  20. Green, S., Marchionini, G., Plaisant, C., & Shneiderman, B. (2000). Previews and overviews in digital libraries: Designing surrogates to support visual information seeking. Journal of American Society for Information Science, 51(4), 380–393.

  21. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning scale conference (pp. 41–50). New York: ACM.

  22. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and instruction, 17(6), 722–738.

  23. Israel, M. J. (2015). Effectiveness of integrating MOOCs in traditional classrooms for undergraduate students. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v16i5.2222.

  24. Kendeou, P., & van den Broek, P. (2007). The effects of prior knowledge and text structure on comprehension processes during reading of scientific texts. Memory and Cognition, 35(7), 1567–1577.

  25. Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Cai, C. J., Li, S. W. D., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014a). Data-driven interaction techniques for improving navigation of educational videos. In Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (pp. 563–572). New York: ACM.

  26. Kim, J., Li, S. W., Cai, C. J., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014b). Leveraging video interaction data and content analysis to improve video learning. In Proceedings of the CHI 2014 learning innovation at scale workshop.

  27. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.

  28. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Campbridge University Press.

  29. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.

  30. Kobayashi, K. (2009a). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311–324.

  31. Kobayashi, K. (2009b). The influence of topic knowledge, external strategy use, and college experience on students’ comprehension of controversial texts. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(1), 130–134.

  32. Lee, H. Y., & List, A. (2018). Processing of texts and videos: A strategy-focused analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12328.

  33. Lin, L. F. (2009). Video segment comprehension strategies: Male and female university students. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 129–139. https://doi.org/10.5539/elt.v2n3p129.

  34. List, A. (2018). Strategies for comprehending and integrating texts and videos. Learning and Instruction.

  35. Magliano, J. P., Loschky, L. C., Clinton, J. A., & Larson, A. M. (2013). Is reading the same as viewing? In B. Miller, L. Cutting, & P. McCardle (Eds.), Unraveling the behavioral, neurobiological, and genetic components of reading comprehension (pp. 78–90). Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing Co.

  36. Mayer, R. E. (1996). Learning strategies for making sense out of expository text: The SOI model for guiding three cognitive processes in knowledge construction. Educational Psychology Review, 8(4), 357–371.

  37. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.

  38. Mayer, R. E. (2005). Principles for managing essential processing in multimedia learning: Segmenting, pretraining, and modality principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

  39. Mayer, R. E. (2014). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 43–72). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  40. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.

  41. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 187–198.

  42. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 312–320.

  43. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30.

  44. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288.

  45. McNamara, D. S., & Magliano, J. P. (2009). Towards a comprehensive model of comprehension. In B. Ross (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.

  46. Meyer, B. J., Brandt, D. M., & Bluth, G. J. (1980). Use of top-level structure in text: Key for reading comprehension of ninth-grade students. Reading Research Quarterly, 16(1), 72–103.

  47. Mills, L. S., Soulé, M. E., & Doak, D. F. (1993). The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience, 43(4), 219–224.

  48. Mitra, B., Lewin-Jones, J., Barrett, H., & Williamson, S. (2010). The use of video to enable deep thinking. Research in Post-Compulsory Education, 15(4), 405–414.

  49. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.

  50. Monserrat, T.-J. K. P., Zhao, S., McGee, K., & Pandley, A. V. (2013). NoteVideo: Facilitating navigation of blackboard-style lecture videos. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Paris, France. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466147.

  51. Montero Perez, M., Peters, E., Clarebout, G., & Desmet, P. (2014). Effects of captioning on video comprehension and incidental vocabulary learning. Language Learning & Technology, 18(1), 118–141. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/issues/february2014/monteroperezetal.pdf.

  52. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358–368.

  53. Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2000). A learner-centered approach to multimedia explanations: Deriving instructional design principles from cognitive theory. Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning, 2(2), 12–20.

  54. Mu, X. (2010). Towards effective video annotation: An approach to automatically link notes with video content. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1752–1763.

  55. Mullen, R., & Wedwick, L. (2008). Avoiding the digital abyss: Getting started in the classroom with YouTube, digital stories, and blogs. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas, 82(2), 66–69.

  56. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

  57. Purcell, K. (2013). Online video 2013. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/files/old-media/Files/Reports/2013/PIP_Online%20Video%202013.pdf.

  58. Rich, P. J., & Hannafin, M. J. (2008). Decisions and reasons: Examining preservice teacher decision-making through video self-analysis. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 20(1), 62–94.

  59. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.

  60. Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56–59.

  61. Sinha, T., Jermann, P., Li, N., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). Your click decides your fate: Inferring information processing and attrition behavior from MOOC video clickstream interactions. arXiv preprint arXiv:1407.7131.

  62. Stahl, S. A., Hynd, C. R., Britton, B. K., McNish, M. M., & Bosquet, D. (1996). What happens when students read multiple source documents in history? Reading Research Quarterly, 31(4), 430–456.

  63. Taylor, G. (2005). Perceived processing strategies of students watching captioned video. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 422–427.

  64. Taylor, B. M., & Beach, R. W. (1984). The effects of text structure instruction on middle-grade students’ comprehension and production of expository text. Reading Research Quarterly, 19(2), 134–146.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Alexandra List.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

List, A., Ballenger, E.E. Comprehension across mediums: the case of text and video. J Comput High Educ 31, 514–535 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-018-09204-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Video
  • Multimedia
  • Multiple texts
  • Comprehension
  • Integration