Comprehension across mediums: the case of text and video

  • Alexandra ListEmail author
  • Eric E. Ballenger


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.


Video Multimedia Multiple texts Comprehension Integration 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  3. Behavioral Observation Research Interactive Software. (Version 2.997) [Computer software]. Torino, Italy: Universita di Torino.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  6. Bråten, I., & Strømsø, H. I. (2011). Measuring strategic processing when students read multiple texts. Metacognition and Learning, 6, 111–130.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  10. Ding, W., & Marchionini, G. (1998). A study on video browsing strategies. Technical Report, College Park, MD, USA.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  14. Duke, N. K., & Pearson, P. D. (2009). Effective practices for developing reading comprehension. Journal of Education, 189(1–2), 107–122.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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. Scholar
  19. Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101(3), 371–395.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  22. Höffler, T. N., & Leutner, D. (2007). Instructional animation versus static pictures: A meta-analysis. Learning and instruction, 17(6), 722–738.Google Scholar
  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. Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  27. Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95(2), 163–182.Google Scholar
  28. Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge: Campbridge University Press.Google Scholar
  29. Kintsch, W., & Van Dijk, T. A. (1978). Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychological Review, 85(5), 363–394.Google Scholar
  30. Kobayashi, K. (2009a). Comprehension of relations among controversial texts: Effects of external strategy use. Instructional Science, 37(4), 311–324.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  32. Lee, H. Y., & List, A. (2018). Processing of texts and videos: A strategy-focused analysis. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning.
  33. Lin, L. F. (2009). Video segment comprehension strategies: Male and female university students. English Language Teaching, 2(3), 129–139. Scholar
  34. List, A. (2018). Strategies for comprehending and integrating texts and videos. Learning and Instruction.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  37. Mayer, R. E. (2001). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  43. McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1–30.Google Scholar
  44. McNamara, D. S., & Kintsch, W. (1996). Learning from texts: Effects of prior knowledge and text coherence. Discourse Processes, 22(3), 247–288.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  47. Mills, L. S., Soulé, M. E., & Doak, D. F. (1993). The keystone-species concept in ecology and conservation. BioScience, 43(4), 219–224.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  49. Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C. A. (2002). Assessing students’ metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 249–259.Google Scholar
  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.
  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 Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  54. Mu, X. (2010). Towards effective video annotation: An approach to automatically link notes with video content. Computers & Education, 55(4), 1752–1763.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  56. Plass, J. L., Moreno, R., & Brünken, R. (Eds.). (2010). Cognitive load theory. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Purcell, K. (2013). Online video 2013. Washington DC: Pew Research Center. Retrieved from
  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.Google Scholar
  59. Schnotz, W., & Bannert, M. (2003). Construction and interference in learning from multiple representation. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 141–156.Google Scholar
  60. Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56–59.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar
  63. Taylor, G. (2005). Perceived processing strategies of students watching captioned video. Foreign Language Annals, 38(3), 422–427.Google Scholar
  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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Educational Psychology, Counseling, and Special EducationThe Pennsylvania State UniversityState CollegeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Educational PsychologyBall State UniversityMuncieUSA

Personalised recommendations