The Value of Video Lectures in the Classroom - UPT Study Case

  • Mihai OnițaEmail author
  • Camelia Ciuclea
  • Radu Vasiu
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 538)


As teachers, we have the responsibility to assist students in understanding the basic concepts and details (when necessary) upon a subject. We must offer them the right materials to achieve the information and the possibility to hear, try, see and think. In our study, conducted in Politehnica University of Timisoara (UPT) environment, we chose a target group consisting of approximately 200 students, divided into two subgroups. We had classroom meetings with all. We offered the first group printed material for home study and to the second group - video lectures. We evaluated students and analyzed the results. We conducted face-to-face post exam discussion and a survey to extract the advantages and disadvantages of video and printed from student’s angle/perspective. This paper provide related work in the field, video lectures design, ours study findings and conclusions.


Video lectures Classroom Interactivity Blended learning Printed educational resources 



This work was partially supported by the strategic grant POSDRU/159/1.5/S/137070 (2014) of the Ministry of National Education, Romania, co-financed by the European Social Fund – Investing in People, within the Sectoral Operational Programme Human Resources Development 2007-2013.


  1. 1.
    Nusir, S., Alsmadi, I., Al-Kabi, M., Sharadgah, F.: Studying the impact of using multimedia interactive programs at children ability to learn basic math skills. Acta Didactica Napocesnia 5(2), 17–31 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wieling, M.B., Hofman, W.H.A.: The impact of online video lecture recordings and automated feedback on student performance. Comput. Educ. 54, 992–998 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Merkt, M., Weigand, S., Hiere, A., Scwan, S.: Learning with videos vs. learning with print. The role of interactive features. Learn. Inst. 21, 687–704 (2011)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Diwanji, P., Simon, B.P., Märki, M., Korkut, S., Dornberger, R.: Success factors of online learning videos. In: International Conference on Interactive Mobile Communication Technologies and Learning (IMCL), pp. 125–132 (2014)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Vasiu, R., Andone, D.: OERs and MOOCs-the romanian experience. In: 2014 International Conference on Web and Open Access to Learning (ICWOAL), pp. 1–5. IEEE (2014)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Clark, R.C., Mayer, R.E.: 10 brilliant design rules for e-learning.
  7. 7.
    Gunter, B., Furnham, A., Leese, J.: Memory for information from a party political broadcast as a function of the channel of communication. Soc. Behav. 1(2), 135–142 (1986)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    van der Molen, J.W., van der Voort, T.: Children’s and adults’ recall of television and print news in children’s and adult news formats. Commun. Res. 27(2), 132–160 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Norhayati, A.M., Siew, P.H.: Malaysian perspective: designing interactive multimedia learning environment for moral values education. Educ. Technol. Soc. 7(4), 143–152 (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R.O., Nunamaker, J.F.: Instructional video in e-learning: assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Inf. Manage. 43, 15–27 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    González, M.J., Montero, E., Beltrán de Heredia, A., Martínez, D.: Integrating digital video resources in teaching eLearning engineering courses. In: Education Engineering (EDUCON), pp. 789–793. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bayhan, P., Olgun, P., Yelland, N.J.: A study of pre-school teachers’ thoughts about computer assisted instruction. Contemp. Issues Early Child. 3(2), 298–303 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chiu, C.F., Lee, G.C., Yang, J.H.: A comparative study of post-class lecture viewing. In: Proceedings of the 5th IASTED International Conference on Web-Based Education, pp. 126–130 (2006)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Evans, C., Gibbons, N.J.: The interactivity effect in multimedia learning. Comput. Educ. 49(4), 1147–1160 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Holzinger, A., Kickmeier-Rust, M., Wassertheurer, S., Hessinger, M.: Learning performance with interactive. Simulations in medical education: lessons learned from results of learning complex physiological models with the HAEMOdynamics SIMulator. Comput. Educ. 52(2), 292–301 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lage, M.J., Platt, G.J., Treglia, M.: Inverting the classroom: a gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. J. Econ. Educ. 31(1), 30–43 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Marsh, B., Mitchell, N., Adamczyk, P.: Interactive video technology: enhancing professional learning in initial teacher education. Comput. Educ. 54, 742–748 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Phelps, J.M., Evans, R.: Supplemental instruction in developmental mathematics. Commun. Coll. Enterp. 12(1), 21–37 (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ross, T.K., Bell, P.D.: No significant difference only on the surface. Int. J. Inst. Technol. Distance Learn. 4(7), 3–13 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stith, B.: Use of animation in teaching cell biology. Cell Biol. Educ. 3, 181–188 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Onița, M., Mihaescu, V., Vasiu, R.: Technical analysis of MOOCs. TEM J. 4(1), 60–72 (2015). ISSN: 2217-8309 (print), eISSN: 2217-8333 (online), Index Copernicus ICID: 1144333Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mihaescu, V., Vasiu, R., Andone, D.: Developing a MOOC-the romanian experience. In: The 13th European Conference on e‐Learning ECEL, pp. 339–346, Aalborg, Denmark (2014)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    ASSSIST: Approaches and study skills inventory for students survey.
  24. 24.
    Soloman, B., Felder, R.M.: Index of learning styles questionnaire.
  25. 25.
  26. 26.
    Liu, W., Li, H.: Time-lapse photography applied to educational videos. In: Consumer Electronics, Communications and Networks (CECNet), pp. 3669–3672 (2012)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Petan, S., Mocofan, M., Vasiu, R.: Enhancing learning in massive open online courses through interactive video. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Scientific Conference “eLearning and Software for Education”, Bucharest (2014)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Gabor, A.M, Vasiu, R., Loghin, G.: Video data use in interactive e-learning courses. A modern method of learning organizing process. In: 6th International Conference of Education, Research and Innovation ICERI 2013, pp. 2184–2190, Seville, Spain, 18–20 November 2013. ISBN 978-84-616-3847-5, ISSN 2340-1095, WOS:000347240602035Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wilson, E.A.H., Makoul, G., Bojarski, E.A., Bailey, S.C., Waite, K.R., Rapp, D.N., Baker, D.W., Wolf, M.S.: Comparative analysis of print and multimedia health materials: a review of the literature. Patient Educ. Couns. 89, 7–14 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    McNamara, D.S., Levinstein, I.B., Boonthum, C.: iSTART: interactive strategy training for active reading and thinking. Behav. Res. Meth. Instrum. Comput. 36(2), 222–233 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Foertsch, J., Moses, G., Strickwerda, J., Litzkov, M.: Reversing the lecture/homework paradigm using eTEACH web-based streaming video software. J. Eng. Educ. 91(3), 267–274 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brecht, H.D.: Learning from online video lectures. J. Inf. Technol. Educ. Innovations Pract. 11(2012), 227–250 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Politehnica University of TimisoaraTimisoaraRomania

Personalised recommendations