Advertisement

Education and Information Technologies

, Volume 21, Issue 5, pp 1135–1151 | Cite as

The influence of prior knowledge and viewing repertoire on learning from video

  • Jelle de BoerEmail author
  • Piet A. M. Kommers
  • Bert de Brock
  • Jos Tolboom
Article

Abstract

Video is increasingly used as an instructional tool. It is therefore becoming more important to improve learning of students from video. We investigated whether student learning effects are influenced through an instruction about other viewing behaviours, and whether these learning effects depend on their prior knowledge. In a controlled environment, 115 students watched a number of instructional videos about the technical equipment needed in a course on digital photography. Every second student was instructed about other possible viewing behaviours. A pre-post-retention test was carried out to calculate learning effects. The differences with respect to the learning effects of students who received an awareness instruction on an alternative viewing strategy were not significantly different. The differences as observed in our earlier experiment however could not be reproduced. Students with a broad viewing repertoire showed higher learning effects than students with a narrow repertoire. Furthermore, students with a strategic viewing approach also showed higher learning effects. Certain conditions have to be met: the technical and didactical quality of the video must be good, the integration in a learning task must be apparent, students must be aware of their viewing behaviour, and teachers must be aware of their students’ viewing behaviour in order to enrich the viewing repertoire of students when they have at least some basic knowledge e.g. after several lessons on the topics at hand. In future research, this study should be replicated using more complex video episodes than the instruction videos we used in our experiments that were only on the factual knowledge level of the taxonomy of Bloom. Moreover, replication of this study with a larger sample size could yield a significant improvement in learning effects. This is plausible because students need an amount of prior knowledge beyond a certain threshold value in order to be able to expand their knowledge network in their long term memory. Finally, additional media player functionality, facilitating effective student learning from video, can be described based on the results of this study.

Keywords

Viewing repertoire Learning styles Streaming video Adaptive systems Log files Metacognition 

References

  1. Abell, M. (2006). Individualizing learning using intelligent technology and universally designed curriculum. Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 5, 1–20.Google Scholar
  2. Atif, Y. (2011). An architectural specification for a system to adapt to learning patterns. Education and Information Technologies, 16, 259–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51, 267–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Becta. (2005). Learning styles - an introduction to the research literature. London: Becta.Google Scholar
  5. Blijleven, P. (2005). Multimedia-cases: towards a bridge between theory and practice. PhD thesis University of Twente, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
  6. Bloom, B. S., Engelhart, M. D., Furst, E. J., Hill, W. H., & Krathwohl, D. R. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: the classification of educational goals. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  7. Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of multimedia learning. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Cook, L. (1991). Learning style awareness and academic achievement among community college students. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 15, 419–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Boer, J. (2010). Using log files from streaming media servers for optimising the learning sequence. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 20, 40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. De Boer, J., & Tolboom, J. L. J. (2008). How to interpret viewing scenarios in log files from streaming media servers. International Journal of Continuing Engineering Education and Life-Long Learning, 18, 432–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. De Boer, J., Kommers, P. A. M., & De Brock, E. O. (2011). Using learning styles and viewing styles in streaming video. Computers & Education, 56, 727–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Efklides, A. (2006). Metacognition and affect: what can metacognitive experiences tell us about the learning process? Educational Research Review, 1, 3–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Felder, R. M., & Silverman, L. K. (1988). Learning and teaching styles in engineering education. Engineering Education, 78, 674–681.Google Scholar
  14. Gog, T., Kester, L., Nievelstein, F., Giesbers, B., & Paas, F. (2009). Uncovering cognitive processes: different techniques that can contribute to cognitive load research and instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 325–331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Guan, Z., Lee, S., Cuddihy, E., & Ramey, J. (2006). The validity of the stimulated retrospective think-aloud method as measured by eye tracking. In Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1253–1262).Google Scholar
  16. Hattie, J.A.C. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of 800+ meta-analyses on achievement. Oxford, UK.Google Scholar
  17. Kozhevnikov, M. (2007). Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Heier, A., & Schwan, S. (2011). Learning with videos vs. Learning with print: the role of interactive features. Learning and Instruction, 21, 687–704.Google Scholar
  19. Özpolat, E., & Akar, G. B. (2009). Automatic detection of learning styles for an e-learning system. Computers & Education, 53, 355–367.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peterson, E. R., Rayner, S. G., & Armstrong, S. J. (2009). Researching the psychology of cognitive style and learning style: is there really a future? Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 518–523.Google Scholar
  21. Salomon, G. (1984). Television is “easy” and print is “tough”: the differential investment of mental effort in learning as a function of perceptions and attributions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 647–658.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Schiaffino, S., Garcia, P., & Amandi, A. (2008). ETeacher: providing personalized assistance to e-learning students. Computers & Education, 51, 1744–1754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tseng, J. C. R., Chu, H. C., Hwang, G. J., & Tsai, C. C. (2008). Development of an adaptive learning system with two sources of personalization information. Computers & Education, 51, 776–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Tukey, J.W. (1977). Eploratory Data Analysis. Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  25. Verhoeven, L., Schnotz, W., & Paas, F. (2009). Cognitive load in interactive knowledge construction. Learning and Instruction, 19, 369–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Vermunt, J. D. (1992). Learning styles and regulation of learning in higher education - Towards process-oriented instruction in autonomous thinking. Amsterdam/Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.Google Scholar
  27. Willingham, D.T. (2009). Why Don’t Students Like School? Wiley.Google Scholar
  28. Zahn, C., Barquero, B., & Schwan, S. (2004). Learning with hyperlinked videos–design criteria and efficient strategies for using audiovisual hypermedia. Learning and Instruction, 14, 275–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jelle de Boer
    • 1
    Email author
  • Piet A. M. Kommers
    • 2
  • Bert de Brock
    • 3
  • Jos Tolboom
    • 4
  1. 1.Institute of Communication & MediaHanze University of Applied SciencesGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of Behavioural SciencesUniversity of TwenteEnschedeThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Faculty of Economics and BusinessUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  4. 4.Netherlands Institute for Curriculum DevelopmentEnschedeThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations