Skip to main content

Students perception of videos in introductory physics courses of engineering in face-to-face and online environments


Digital videos have an important (and increasing) presence in learning processes, especially within online universities and schools. However, creating videos is a time-consuming activity for teachers, who are usually not expert in video creation. Therefore, it is important to know which kind of video is perceived as more satisfactory and useful by students, among the videos that docents usually create. In this paper we show a structural model with the relation between satisfaction, the way in which a video has been created, the kind of video (with or without the hands of the teacher and with or without the body/head of the teacher), perceived usefulness, contents of the video (theory or problems) and the potential impact of videos on passing rates. The experiment has been performed in an introductory Physics of Engineering course with over 200 first year students in both: at 100% online university, Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC); and at a face-to-face university, Escola Universitària Salesiana de Sarrià (EUSS). Tests have been performed with around 100 videos of two types: videos created with a digitizing tablet and screen capture, and videos created by recording the hands of the teacher. Results have been quantitatively analysed. The research shows that results are independent of the environment and that students prefer videos with hands. On the other hand, little effect has been found regarding the content of the video in the perceived usefulness or satisfaction. The performance results show that videos can improve the chances of passing the subject. Thus, the paper shows that videos with hands are a useful complement to challenging subjects, like introductory physics in Engineering, to effectively assimilate scientific knowledge. The main contributions of this paper are: to analyse the perception that students have of video in a specific context, introductory course of Physics in Engineering, in different environments; and to analyse the perception of the video regarding the way in which it has been created, and the kind of content.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3




  1. Astrom R (2011) Advanced acoustic demonstration videos for higher education: longitudinal wave motion. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 129(4):2646–2646.

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  2. BECTA ICT Research. (2003). What the research says about digital video in teaching and learning. Retrieved from

  3. Bennett, E and Maniar, N (2008). Are videoed lectures an effective teaching tool? Retrieved from plymouth.Pdf

  4. Carmichael, P. (2013). Digital video, presence and pedagogy. Retrieved from

  5. Cassell J, Nakano YI, Bickmore TW, Sidner CL, Rich C (2001) Non-verbal cues for discourse structure. In: Proceedings of the 39th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics - ACL ‘01. Association for Computational Linguistics, Morristown, pp 114–123.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Chasteen SV (2012) Videos on effective group work and clicker use in physics instruction from the Uniwersity of Colorado Science Education Initiative and the Uniwersity of British Columbia Carl Wieman Science Education Initiative, Phys Teach 50(3):189–189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Claros Gómez, ID and Pérez Cobos, R (2013). Del vídeo educativo a objetos de aprendizaje multimedia interactivos: un entorno de aprendizaje colaborativo basado en redes sociales. Experiencias innovadoras en educación II (Vol. 22). Departamento de Didáctica y Teoría de la Educación. Universidad Autónoma. Retrieved from

  8. Cofield, JL (2002). An assessment of streaming video in web-based instruction. In Mid-South Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. Retrieved from

  9. Cook MP (2006) Visual representations in science education: the influence of prior knowledge and cognitive load theory on instructional design principles. Sci Educ 90(6):1073–1091.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Cook SW, Yip TK, Goldin-Meadow S (2012) Gestures, but not meaningless movements, lighten working memory load when explaining math. Lang Cogn Process 27(4):594–610.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Dancy M, Henderson C (2010) Pedagogical practices and instructional change of physics faculty. Am J Phys 78(10):1056–1063.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Eckert B, Gröber S, Jodl H-J (2009) Distance education in physics via the internet. Am J Dist Educ 23(3):125–138.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Einspruch EL, Lynch B, Aufderheide TP, Nichol G, Becker L (2007) Retention of CPR skills learned in a traditional AHA Heartsaver course versus 30-min video self-training: A controlled randomized study. Resuscitation 74(3):476–486.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Freitas IM, Jiménez R, Mellado V (2004) Solving physics problems: the conceptions and practice of an experienced teacher and an inexperienced teacher. Res Sci Educ 34(1):113–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Geelan D (2013) Teacher explanation of physics concepts: a video study. Res Sci Educ 43(5):1751–1762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Goldin-Meadow S, Sandhofer CM (1999) Gestures convey substantive information about a child’s thoughts to ordinary listeners. Dev Sci 2(1):67–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Goldin-Meadow S, Singer MA (2003) From children’s hands to adults’ ears: Gesture’s role in the learning process. Dev Psychol 39(3):509–520.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Grau-Valldosera J, Minguillón J (2011) Redefining dropping out in online higher education. In: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on learning analytics and knowledge - LAK ‘11. ACM Press, New York, pp 75–80.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  19. Green SM, Voegeli D, Harrison M, Phillips J, Knowles J, Weaver M, Shephard K (2003) Evaluating the use of streaming video to support student learning in a first-year life sciences course for student nurses. Nurse Educ Today 23(4):255–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Guo, PJ, Kim, J and Rubin, R (2014). How video production affects student engagement. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference - L@S ‘14 (pp. 41–50). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press

  21. Habraken CL (2004) Integrating into chemistry teaching Today’s Student’s Visuospatial talents and skills, and the teaching of Today’s Chemistry’s graphical language. Journal of Science Education and Technology 13(1):89–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Herron C, Cole SP, Corrie C, Dubreil S (1999) The effectiveness of a video-based curriculum in teaching culture. Mod Lang J 83(4):518–533.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ho AD, Reich J, Nesterko SO et al (2014) HarvardX and MITx: The First Year of Open Online Courses, Fall 2012-Summer 2013. SSRN Electron J.

  24. Hsu L, Brewe E, Foster TM, Harper KA (2004) Resource letter RPS-1: research in problem solving. Am J Phys 72(9):1147–1156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Hubbard AL, Wilson SM, Callan DE, Dapretto M (2009) Giving speech a hand: gesture modulates activity in auditory cortex during speech perception. Hum Brain Mapp 30(3):1028–1037.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Huffman D (1997) Effect of explicit problem solving instruction on high school students’ problem-solving performance and conceptual understanding of physics. J Res Sci Teach 34(6):551–570.<551::AID-TEA2>3.0.CO;2-M

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Khan MSL, Réhman S u (2015) Embodied head gesture and distance education. Procedia Manufacturing 3:2034–2041.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Koumi, J (2006). Designing video and multimedia for open and flexible learning. Routledge.

  29. Kutas M, Federmeier KD (2000) Electrophysiology reveals semantic memory use in language comprehension. Trends Cogn Sci 4(12):463–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Levy Y (2007) Comparing dropouts and persistence in e-learning courses. Comput Educ 48(2):185–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lichter J (2012) Using YouTube as a platform for teaching and learning solubility rules. J Chem Educ 89(9):1133–1137.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Loch B, Jordan CR, Lowe TW, Mestel BD (2014) Do screencasts help to revise prerequisite mathematics? An investigation of student performance and perception. Int J Math Educ Sci Technol 45(2):256–268.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Lynch SM (2013) Using statistics in social research. Springer New York, New York, NY.

    Book  MATH  Google Scholar 

  34. Mayo A, Sharma MD, Muller DA (2009) Qualitative differences between learning environments using videos in small groups and whole class discussions: A preliminary study in physics. Res Sci Educ 39(4):477–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. McNeill D, Cassell J, McCullough K-E (1994) Communicative effects of speech-mismatched gestures. Res Lang Soc Interact 27(3):223–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Mike Moran, Seaman, J, & Tinti-Kane, H. (2011a). Teaching, Learning, and Sharing: How Today’s Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media. Retrieved from

  37. Moran, M, Seaman, J, & Tinti-Kane, H (2011b). Teaching, Learning, and Sharing: How Today’s Higher Education Faculty Use Social Media. Retrieved from

  38. Muller, Derek Alexander. (2008). Designing effective multimedia for physics education. School of Physics. University of Sidney. Retrieved from

  39. Muller DA, Bewes J, Sharma MD, Reimann P (2007) Saying the wrong thing: improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. J Comput Assist Learn 24(2):144–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Mutlu Bayraktar D, Altun A (2014) The effect of multimedia design types on learners’ recall performances with varying short term memory spans. Multimed Tools Appl 71(3):1201–1213.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Nagy, JT (2018). Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: an extension of the technology acceptance model. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(1).

  42. Ouwehand K, van Gog T, Paas F (2015) Designing effective video-based modeling examples using gaze and gesture cues. Educational Technology & Society 18:78–88

    Google Scholar 

  43. Özyürek A (2014) Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: insights from brain and behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 369(1651):20130296.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Paivio, A (1986). Mental representations : a dual coding approach. Oxford University Press. Retrieved from

  45. Pereira MV, Barros d S, de Rezende Filho S, Luiz AC, de A Fauth LH (2012) Audiovisual physics reports: students’ video production as a strategy for the didactic laboratory. Phys Educ 47(1):44–51.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Perez-Navarro A, Conesa J, Santanach F, Valls A (2012) PRESENT@ an environment for virtual dissertations in final degree projects. EDULEARN12 Proc., pp 2384–2393. Accessed 10 Mar 2015

  47. Perez-Navarro A, Conesa J, Santanach F, Garreta M, Valls A (2012) Present@: a virtual environment for dissertation defense. In: 2012 Frontiers in Education Conference Proceedings. IEEE, pp 1–6.

  48. Reisslein J, Seeling P, Reisslein M (2005) Video in distance education: ITFS vs. web-streaming: evaluation of student attitudes. Internet High Educ 8(1):25–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Santaliestra, J, Costa, R and Ortín, C. Transversality and interdisciplinarity in the virtual learning environments in the teacher training degree. Innovaciondocente.Unizar.Es. Retrieved from 318 virtual learning environments final version.Doc

  50. Joost Scharrenberg. (2011). ¿Qué son los medios sociales? | Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

  51. Shephard K (2003) Questioning, promoting and evaluating the use of streaming video to support student learning. Br J Educ Technol 34(3):295–308.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Stull AT, Fiorella L, Gainer MJ, Mayer RE (2018) Using transparent whiteboards to boost learning from online STEM lectures. Comput Educ 120:146–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. TAKEDA N, TAKEUCHI I, HARUNA M (2007) Assessment of learning activities using streaming video for laboratory practice education: aiming for development of E-learning system that promote self-learning. Yakugaku Zasshi 127(12):2097–2103.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Van Cauwenberge, A., Schaap, G., & van Roy, R. (2014). “TV no longer commands our full attention”: effects of second-screen viewing and task relevance on cognitive load and learning from news. Comput Hum Behav, 38, 100–109.

  55. van der Meij J, de Jong T (2006) Supporting students’ learning with multiple representations in a dynamic simulation-based learning environment. Learn Instr 16(3):199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Van Heuvelen A (1991) Learning to think like a physicist: A review of research-based instructional strategies. Am J Phys 59(10):891–897.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Van Petten C, Luka BJ (2006) Neural localization of semantic context effects in electromagnetic and hemodynamic studies. Brain Lang 97(3):279–293.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Weinrich ML, Sevian H (2017) Capturing students’ abstraction while solving organic reaction mechanism problems across a semester. Chem Educ Res Pract 18(1):169–190.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Westfall R, Millar M, Walsh M (2016) Effects of instructor attractiveness on learning. J Gen Psychol 143(3):161–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  60. Wray RE, Chong RS (2007) Comparing cognitive models and human behavior models: two computational tools for expressing human behavior. J Aerosp Comput Inf Commun 4(5):836–852.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Yap D-F, So W-C, Melvin Yap J-M, Tan Y-Q, Teoh R-LS (2011) Iconic gestures prime words. Cogn Sci 35(1):171–183.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations


Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Perez-Navarro.

Ethics declarations

Ethical statement, conflict of interest and informed consent

The authors certify that they have NO affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest (such as honoraria; educational grants; participation in speakers’ bureaus; membership, employment, consultancies, stock ownership, or other equity interest; and expert testimony or patent-licensing arrangements), or non-financial inter- est. (such as personal or professional relationships, affiliations, knowledge or beliefs) in the subject matter or materials discussed in this manuscript.

All study participants, or their legal guardian, were informed and give consent prior to study enrollment; and all data were anonymized.

Contribution of this paper to the literature

• This study aims to investigate the Physics students’ perceptions on different kind of educational videos used in both virtual and face-to-face university contexts in Barcelona (Spain).

• The study shows that perception of videos by students is independent of the subject and of the environment (face-to-face or online).

• A relation is found between satisfaction, the way in which a video has been created, the perceived usefulness of videos, the contents of the video (theory or problems) and its usage.

• The effect of videos in students’ performance is also shown.

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

Perez-Navarro, A., Garcia, V. & Conesa, J. Students perception of videos in introductory physics courses of engineering in face-to-face and online environments. Multimed Tools Appl 80, 1009–1028 (2021).

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI:


  • Educational videos
  • Videos with hands
  • Non-verbal information
  • E-learning
  • Physics education
  • STEM
  • Sciences education