Lecture videos are an integral part of distance education. Much has been done to investigate the effects of lecture video styles, but many of the studies have methodological issues and confounding variables. The current study focused on the amount of motion in two types of lecture videos (hand-drawn and narration-over-PowerPoint) and investigated motion’s effect on learners’ perceived engagement and learning outcome. Participants watched lecture videos with varying amount of within-video motion, rated the engagement levels of the videos, and completed recall and knowledge transfer tasks. The study was conducted in a laboratory setting that simulated an online learning environment. Our findings indicate that a hand-drawn type of lecture video was rated as most engaging and supported recall performance of individuals with low prior knowledge of content materials. Knowledge transfer performance was affected by learners’ prior knowledge but not by the amount of motion in lecture videos. Pedagogical implications are described in the discussion section.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2003). Motion onset captures attention. Psychological Science,14(5), 427–432. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.01458.
Castro-Alonso, J. C., Ayres, P., & Paas, F. (2016). Comparing apples and oranges? A critical look at research on learning from statics versus animations. Computers & Education,102, 234–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.09.004.
Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1991). Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction. Cognition and Instruction,8(4), 293–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0804_2.
Chen, C.-M., & Wu, C.-H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education,80, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.08.015.
Chen, H.-T., & Lorch, R. F., Jr. (2018). Effects of audio headings on learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,24(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000143.
Craig, S. D., & Schroeder, N. L. (2017). Reconsidering the voice effect when learning from a virtual human. Computers & Education,114, 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.003.
Craig, S. D., Twyford, J., Irigoyen, N., & Zipp, S. A. (2015). A test of spatial contiguity for virtual human’s gestures in multimedia learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research,53(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0735633115585927.
Cross, A., Bayyapunedi, M., Cutrell, E., Agarwal, A., & Thies, W. (2013). TypeRighting: Combining the benefits of handwriting and typeface in online educational videos. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems— CHI ’13, 793. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470766
Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving students’ learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,14(1), 4–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612453266.
Dyson, M. C., & Haselgrove, M. (2000). The effects of reading speed and reading patterns on the understanding of text read from screen. Journal of Research in Reading,23(2), 210–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.00115.
Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology,108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065.
Griffin, D. K., Mitchell, D., & Thompson, S. J. (2009). Podcasting by synchronising PowerPoint and voice: What are the pedagogical benefits? Computers & Education,53(2), 532–539. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.03.011.
Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference—L@S ’14, 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239
Hillstrom, A. P., & Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motion and attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics,55(4), 399–411. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205298.
Ilioudi, C., Giannakos, M. N., & Chorianopoulos, K. (2013). Investigating differences among the commonly used video lecture styles. Proceedings of the 2013 WAVe Workshop on Analytics on Video-based Learning, Leuven, Belgium: LAK’13. https://doi.org/10.13140/2.1.3524.9284
James, W. (1890). The principles of psychology (Vol. II). NY: Henry Holt and Company.
James, W. (1950). The principles of psychology. Oxford: Dover Publications. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=1950-04948-000&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science,331(6018), 772–775. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1199327.
Kendeou, P., van den Broek, P., Helder, A., & Karlsson, J. (2014). A cognitive view of reading comprehension: Implications for reading difficulties. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice,29(1), 10–16. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12025.
Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks in online lecture videos. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference - L@S ’14, 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566237
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review,95(2), 163. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.163.
Lemarié, J., Lorch, R. F., Jr., Eyrolle, H., & Virbel, J. (2008). SARA: A text-based and reader-based theory of signaling. Educational Psychologist,43(1), 27–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756321.
Mautone, P. D., & Mayer, R. E. (2001). Signaling as a cognitive guide in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,93(2), 377. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0622.214.171.1247.
Mayer, R. E. (1992). Thinking, problem solving, cognition, 2nd ed. New York, NY: W H Freeman/Times Books/ Henry Holt & Co. Retrieved from https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=psyh&AN=1992-97696-000&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Mayer, R. E. (2005). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. (pp. 31–48). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511816819.004
Mayer, R. E. (2017). Using multimedia for e-learning: Multimedia for e-learning. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,33(5), 403–423. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12197.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology,83(4), 484–490. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06126.96.36.1994.
Mayer, R. E., & DaPra, C. S. (2012). An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied,18(3), 239–252. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028616.
Mayer, R. E., & Fiorella, L. (2014). 12 Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 279–315). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Sims, V. K. (1994). For whom is a picture worth a thousand words? Extensions of a dual-coding theory of multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology,86(3), 389–401. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06188.8.131.529.
Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker’s voice. Journal of Educational Psychology,95(2), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2069.
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-06220.127.116.118.
O’Brien, E. J., & Cook, A. E. (2016). Coherence threshold and the continuity of processing: The RI-Val model of comprehension. Discourse Processes,53(5–6), 326–338. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2015.1123341.
Piolat, A., Olive, T., & Kellogg, R. T. (2005). Cognitive effort during note taking. Applied Cognitive Psychology,19(3), 291–312. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1086.
Roediger, H. L., III, & Karpicke, J. D. (2006). Test-enhanced learning: Taking memory tests improves long-term retention. Psychological Science,17(3), 249–255. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01693.x.
Schroeder, N. L., & Traxler, A. L. (2017). Humanizing instructional videos in physics: when less is more. Journal of Science Education and Technology,26(3), 269–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10956-016-9677-6.
van den Broek, P., & Helder, A. (2017). Cognitive processes in discourse comprehension: Passive processes, reader-initiated processes, and evolving mental representations. Discourse Processes,54(5–6), 360–372. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853X.2017.1306677.
Visser, L. N. C., Hillen, M. A., Verdam, M. G. E., Bol, N., de Haes, H. C. J. M., & Smets, E. M. A. (2016). Assessing engagement while viewing video vignettes; Validation of the Video Engagement Scale (VES). Patient Education and Counseling,99(2), 227–235. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2015.08.029.
Yantis, S., & Hillstrom, A. P. (1994). Stimulus-driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,20(1), 95. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1518.104.22.168.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
The current study involved human participants. The relevant IRB protocol number is 000376 at Eastern Kentucky University.
Informed consent was acquired from individual participants.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Sample audio text material transcript
The airplane is one of the most significant achievements of modern science. Human beings have long aspired to fly like birds. Although airplanes have dramatically changed since the time of the Wright brothers, the principles that allow airplanes to fly have not changed. In this article, we will discuss the forces that allow airplanes to fly and the ways that engineers have designed airplanes to conquer the principles of flight.
Let’s begin by considering the forces that make it difficult for airplanes to achieve flight.
The most obvious force that must be overcome to achieve flight is the weight of the airplane itself. Modern commercial aircraft weigh hundreds of tons. Yet the weight of a well-designed airplane is kept to a minimum in two main ways.
Engineers build the body of an aircraft in several steps that are designed to create a structure that is hollow and light yet durable. First, a series of circular metal rings linked by long metal rods are installed along the length of the body. This skeletal structure is then covered by a sheet of metal skin to protect the skeletal structure. This construction allows the airplane’s body to be durable while using minimum amount of material.
The first airplanes were built with a relatively heavy wooden skeletal structure. Modern airplanes are built with a combination of aluminum alloy and carbon fiber. These materials are lighter than wood but much more durable.
The Earth’s atmosphere has a density that resists the movement of objects through it. This resistance is called “drag” and it is the other force that engineers must keep in mind. A well-designed airplane will include design details that minimize drag.
Most commercial airplanes have a rounded nose cone attached to its cylindrical body. The rounded nose cone keeps the air flow attached to the plane. Having air flow attached to the plane reduces drag and leads to a more fuel efficient flight.
The smoother a surface, the less friction that occurs when air passes over it so engineers do all that they can to make the surface of an airplane as smooth as possible. Most modern airplanes are coated with a special type of paint that contains nanoparticles. These nanoparticles are able to fill even the tiniest uneven part of the surface and prevent adherence of dirt and other contaminants. This nanoparticle coating allows the exterior of the plane to remain extremely smooth and thereby reduces surface friction.
Sample recall & knowledge transfer questions
Sample recall questions
List the force discussed in the third lecture segment that affected airplane flight.
List and explain all the ways in which the airplane’s wings allow the airplane to fly.
Sample knowledge transfer questions
How could the wings’ design be improved to achieve airborne more rapidly?
Using what you've learned about how an airplane’ wings contribute to flight, explain how a helicopter’ rotor blades allow it to fly.
About this article
Cite this article
Chen, H.M., Thomas, M. Effects of lecture video styles on engagement and learning. Education Tech Research Dev (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09757-6
- Distance learning
- Lecture videos
- Instructional design
- Education technology