Advertisement

Videos in der Lehre: Wirkungen und Nebenwirkungen

  • Malte PersikeEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Springer Reference Psychologie book series (SRP)

Zusammenfassung

Lernvideos zählen zu den wichtigsten digitalen Medien in der Hochschullehre. Kein anderes multimediales Format ist so unkompliziert herzustellen und zu publizieren wie das Lernvideo. Überdies ist keines so gut wissenschaftlich untersucht. Dieses Kapitel nimmt zunächst eine Begriffsbestimmung der verschiedenen Videoformate für die Lehre vor, beginnend bei der Vorlesungsaufzeichnung bis zum 360° Virtual Reality Video. Anschließend wird der typische Produktionsprozess eines Lernvideos beschrieben, Herausforderungen identifiziert und Lösungen benannt. Nach der Vorstellung verschiedener Einsatzmöglichkeiten in Präsenzveranstaltungen, Blended Learning Szenarien und kollaborativen Lernformaten wird ein ausführlicher Blick auf die vielfältige und nicht immer ganz widerspruchsfreie Wirkungsforschung zum Einsatz von Videos in der Hochschullehre geworfen.

Schlüsselwörter

Lernvideos E-Lectures SAMR Modell Digitalisierung Wirkungsforschung 

Literatur

  1. Abeysekera, L., & Dawson, P. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research and Development, 34(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  2. Baltruschat, A. (2018). Exkurs 2: Videos und Filme in der Lehrerbildung. In Didaktische Unterrichtsforschung (S. 155–172). Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  3. Basu Roy, R., & McMahon, G. T. (2012). Video-based cases disrupt deep critical thinking in problem-based learning. Medical Education, 46(4), 426–435.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Becker, S. A., Freeman, A., Hall, C. G., Cummins, M., & Yuhnke, B. (2016). NMC Horizon Report: 2016 K (S. 1–52). Austin: The New Media Consortium.Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Billings-Gagliardi, S., & Mazor, K. M. (2007). Student decisions about lecture attendance: Do electronic course materials matter? Academic Medicine, 82(10), 73–76.Google Scholar
  7. Bolliger, D. U., Supanakorn, S., & Boggs, C. (2010). Impact of podcasting on student motivation in the online learning environment. Computers & Education, 55(2), 714–722.Google Scholar
  8. Bongey, S., Cizadlo, G., & Kalnbach, L. (2006). Explorations in course-casting: Podcasts in higher education. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 23(5), 350–367.Google Scholar
  9. Bos, N. R. (2016). Effectiveness of blended learning: Factors facilitating effective behavior in a blended learning environment. Doctoral dissertation, Maastricht.Google Scholar
  10. Boulet, G. (2012). Gamification: The latest buzzword and the next fad. eLearn, 12, 3.Google Scholar
  11. Brecht, H. D. (2012). Learning from online video lectures. Journal of Information Technology Education, 11, 227–250.Google Scholar
  12. Buckley, P., & Doyle, E. (2016). Gamification and student motivation. Interactive Learning Environments, 24(6), 1162–1175.Google Scholar
  13. Cardall, S., Krupat, E., & Ulrich, M. (2008). Live lecture versus video-recorded lecture: Are students voting with their feet? Academic Medicine, 83(12), 1174–1178.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Chambel, T., Zahn, C., & Finke, M. (2006). Hypervideo and cognition: Designing video-based hypermedia for individual learning and collaborative knowledge building. In Cognitively informed systems: Utilizing practical approaches to enrich information presentation and transfer (S. 26–49). Hershey: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  15. Chen, Y. T. (2012). The effect of thematic video-based instruction on learning and motivation in e-learning. International Journal of Physical Sciences, 7(6), 957–965.Google Scholar
  16. Choi, I., Lee, S. J., & Jung, J. W. (2008). Designing multimedia case-based instruction accommodating students’ diverse learning styles. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17(1), 5.Google Scholar
  17. Cochrane, T. D., Stretton, T., Aiello, S., Britnell, S., Cook, S., & Narayan, V. (2018). Authentic interprofessional health education scenarios using mobile VR. Research in Learning Technology, 26.Google Scholar
  18. Codish, D., & Ravid, G. (2014). Personality based gamification-Educational gamification for extroverts and introverts. In Proceedings of the 9th CHAIS conference for the study of innovation and learning technologies: Learning in the technological era (Bd. 1, S. 36–44). Ra’anana, Israel.Google Scholar
  19. Connor-Greene, P. A. (2000). Assessing and promoting student learning: Blurring the line between teaching and testing. Teaching of Psychology, 27(2), 84–88.Google Scholar
  20. Copley, J. (2007). Audio and video podcasts of lectures for campus-based students: Production and evaluation of student use. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 44(4), 387–399.Google Scholar
  21. Danan, M. (2004). Captioning and subtitling: Undervalued language learning strategies. Meta: Journal des traducteurs/Meta:Translators' Journal, 49(1), 67–77.Google Scholar
  22. Day, J., & Foley, J. (2006). Evaluating web lectures: A case study from HCI. In CHI’06 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems (S. 195–200). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  23. Demetriadis, S., & Pombortsis, A. (2007). E-lectures for flexible learning: A study on their learning efficiency. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 10(2), 147–157.Google Scholar
  24. Denny, P. (2013). The effect of virtual achievements on student engagement. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (S. 763–772). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  25. Dinis, F. M., Guimarães, A. S., Carvalho, B. R., & Martins, J. P. P. (2017). Virtual and augmented reality game-based applications to civil engineering education. In Global Engineering Education Conference (EDUCON) 2017 IEEE (S. 1683–1688). New York: IEEE.Google Scholar
  26. Ellis, L., & Mathis, D. (1985). College student learning from televised versus conventional classroom lectures: A controlled experiment. Higher Education, 14(2), 165–173.Google Scholar
  27. Figlio, D., Rush, M., & Yin, L. (2013). Is it live or is it internet? Experimental estimates of the effects of online instruction on student learning. Journal of Labor Economics, 31(4), 763–784.Google Scholar
  28. Fischer, S., Lowe, R. K., & Schwan, S. (2008). Effects of presentation speed of a dynamic visualization on the understanding of a mechanical system. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 22(8), 1126–1141.Google Scholar
  29. Friedman, P., Rodriguez, F., & McComb, J. (2001). Why students do and do not attend classes: Myths and realities. College Teaching, 49(4), 124–133.Google Scholar
  30. Frydenberg, M. (2006). Principles and pedagogy: The two P’s of podcasting in the information technology classroom. In Proceedings of the information systems education conference 2006, v23 (Dallas).Google Scholar
  31. Garrison, D. R., & Cleveland-Innes, M. (2005). Facilitating cognitive presence in online learning: Interaction is not enough. The American Journal of Distance Education, 19(3), 133–148.Google Scholar
  32. Ghinea, G., & Thomas, J. T. (2005). Quality of perception: User quality of service in multimedia presentations. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 7(4), 786–789.Google Scholar
  33. Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrisochoides, N. (2015). Making sense of video analytics: Lessons learned from clickstream interactions, attitudes, and learning outcome in a video-assisted course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 260–283.Google Scholar
  34. Grabe, M., & Christopherson, K. (2008). Optional student use of online lecture resources: Resource preferences, performance and lecture attendance. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(1), 1–10.Google Scholar
  35. Griffin, P., Coates, H., Mcinnis, C., & James, R. (2003). The development of an extended course experience questionnaire. Quality in Higher Education, 9(3), 259–266.Google Scholar
  36. Gross, D., Pietri, E. S., Anderson, G., Moyano-Camihort, K., & Graham, M. J. (2015). Increased preclass preparation underlies student outcome improvement in the flipped classroom. CBE Life Sciences Education, 14(4), ar36.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014, March). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (S. 41–50). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  38. Haggerty, G., & Hilsenroth, M. J. (2011). The use of video in psychotherapy supervision. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 27(2), 193–210.Google Scholar
  39. Hamari, J., Koivisto, J., & Sarsa, H. (2014). Does gamification work?-a literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In System sciences (HICSS) 2014, 47th Hawaii international conference on (S. 3025–3034). Piscataway: IEEE.Google Scholar
  40. Hamilton, E. R., Rosenberg, J. M., & Akcaoglu, M. (2016). The substitution augmentation modification redefinition (SAMR) model: A critical review and suggestions for its use. TechTrends, 60(5), 433–441.Google Scholar
  41. Handke, J. (2014). The inverted classroom mastery model-A diary study. In E.-M. Großkurth & J. Handke (Hrsg.), The inverted classroom model: The 3rd German ICM-conference proceedings. Oldenburg: De Gruyter.Google Scholar
  42. Handke, J. (2015). Handbuch Hochschullehre Digital. Leitfaden für eine moderne und mediengerechte Lehre. Marburg: Tectum.Google Scholar
  43. Harrington, C. M., Kavanagh, D. O., Ballester, G. W., Ballester, A. W., Dicker, P., Traynor, O., Hill, A., & Tierney, S. (2017). 360° Operative videos: A randomised cross-over study evaluating attentiveness and information retention. Journal of Surgical Education, 75(4), 993–1000.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Hill, J. L., & Nelson, A. (2011). New technology, new pedagogy? Employing video podcasts in learning and teaching about exotic ecosystems. Environmental Education Research, 17(3), 393–408.Google Scholar
  45. Homer, B. D., Plass, J. L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786–797.Google Scholar
  46. Hove, M., & Corcoran, K. (2008). If you post it, will they come? Lecture availability in introductory psychology. Teaching of Psychology, 35(2), 91–95.Google Scholar
  47. Jang, D. P., Kim, I. Y., Nam, S. W., Wiederhold, B. K., Wiederhold, M. D., & Kim, S. I. (2002). Analysis of physiological response to two virtual environments: Driving and flying simulation. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, 5(1), 11–18.Google Scholar
  48. Jensen, S. A. (2011). In-class versus online video lectures: Similar learning outcomes, but a preference for in-class. Teaching of Psychology, 38(4), 298–302.Google Scholar
  49. Kibble, J. (2007). Use of unsupervised online quizzes as formative assessment in a medical physiology course: Effects of incentives on student participation and performance. Advances in Physiology Education, 31(3), 253–260.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Kim, J., Guo, P. J., Seaton, D. T., Mitros, P., Gajos, K. Z., & Miller, R. C. (2014). Understanding in-video dropouts and interaction peaks inonline lecture videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference (S. 31–40). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  51. Klass, B. (2003). Streaming media in higher education: Possibilities and pitfalls. Campus Technology. https://campustechnology.com/articles/2003/05/streaming-media-in-higher-education-possibilities-and-pitfalls.aspx.
  52. Kleinknecht, M., & Poschinski, N. (2014). Eigene und fremde Videos in der Lehrerfortbildung. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik, 60(3), 471–490.Google Scholar
  53. Kleinknecht, M., Schneider, J., & Syring, M. (2014). Varianten videobasierten Lehrens und Lernens in der Lehrpersonenaus-und-fortbildung – Empirische Befunde und didaktische Empfehlungen zum Einsatz unterschiedlicher Lehr-Lern-Konzepte und Videotypen. Beiträge zur Lehrerinnen-und Lehrerbildung, 32(2), 210–220.Google Scholar
  54. Krathwohl, D. R., & Anderson, L. W. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing. New York: David McKay Company.Google Scholar
  55. Krathwohl, D. R., Bloom, B. S., & Masia, B. B. (1964). Taxonomy of educational objectives: Handbook II: Affective domain. New York: David McKay Co.Google Scholar
  56. Kukulska-Hulme, A., Foster-Jones, J., Jelfs, A., Mallett, E., & Holland, D. (2004). Investigating digital video applications in distance learning. Journal of Educational Media, 29(2), 125–137.Google Scholar
  57. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30–43.Google Scholar
  58. Larkin, H. E. (2010). „But they won’t come to lectures ...“ The impact of audio recorded lectures on student experience and attendance. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(2).Google Scholar
  59. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Lee, S. H., Sergueeva, K., Catangui, M., & Kandaurova, M. (2017). Assessing Google Cardboard virtual reality as a content delivery system in business classrooms. Journal of Education for Business, 92(4), 153–160.Google Scholar
  61. Li, N., Verma, H., Skevi, A., Zufferey, G., & Dillenbourg, P. (2014). MOOC learning in spontaneous study groups: Does synchronously watching videos make a difference? Proceedings of the European MOOC Stakeholder Summit 2014 (No. EPFL-CONF-196608, S. 88–94). PAU Education.Google Scholar
  62. Li, N., Kidziński, Ł., Jermann, P., & Dillenbourg, P. (2015). MOOC video interaction patterns: What do they tell us? Design for teaching and learning in a networked world (S. 197–210). Barcelona: Springer International Publishing.Google Scholar
  63. Liou, H. H., Yang, S. J., Chen, S. Y., & Tarng, W. (2017). The influences of the 2D image-based augmented reality and virtual reality on student learning. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 20(3), 110–121.Google Scholar
  64. Marks, B. P. (2002). Web-based readiness assessment quizzes. Journal of Engineering Education, 91(1), 97–102.Google Scholar
  65. Mazzolini, M., & Maddison, S. (2003). Sage, guide or ghost? The effect of instructor intervention on student participation in online discussion forums. Computers & Education, 40(3), 237–253.Google Scholar
  66. Meisel, S. (1998). Videotypes: Considerations for effective use of video in teaching and training. Journal of Management Development, 17(4), 251–258.Google Scholar
  67. Microsoft Research. Project Tuva (2009). http://research.microsoft.com/apps/tools/tuva/index.html.
  68. Moore, S., Armstrong, C., & Pearson, J. (2008). Lecture absenteeism among students in higher education: A valuable route to understanding student motivation. Journal of Higher Education Policy and Management, 30(1), 15–24.Google Scholar
  69. Morales, C., Cory, C., & Bozell, D. (2001). A comparative efficiency study between a live lecture and a web-based live-switched multi-camera streaming video distance learning instructional unit. In Proceedings of 2001 information resources management association international conference (S. 63–66). Toronto, Ontario.Google Scholar
  70. Moro, C., Stromberga, Z., & Stirling, A. (2017). Virtualisation devices for student learning: Comparison between desktop-based (Oculus Rift) and mobile-based (Gear VR) virtual reality in medical and health science education. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 33(6), 1–10.Google Scholar
  71. O’Flaherty, J., & Phillips, C. (2015). The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education, 25, 85–95.Google Scholar
  72. Owston, R., Lupshenyuk, D., & Wideman, H. (2011). Lecture capture in large undergraduate classes: Student perceptions and academic performance. The Internet and Higher Education, 14(4), 262–268.Google Scholar
  73. Pantelidis, V. S. (1993). Virtual reality in the classroom. Educational Technology, 33(4), 23–27.Google Scholar
  74. Procter, R., Hartswood, M., McKinlay, A., & Gallacher, S. (1999). An investigation of the influence of network quality of service on the effectiveness of multimedia communication. In Proceedings of the international ACM SIGGROUP conference on Supporting group work (S. 160–168). New York: ACM.Google Scholar
  75. Reiners, T., Wood, L. C., Chang, V., Gütl, C., Herrington, J., Teräs, H., & Gregory, S. (2012). Operationalising gamification in an educational authentic environment. IADIS Press.Google Scholar
  76. Ronchetti, M. (2010). Perspectives of the application of video streaming to education. In Streaming media architectures, techniques, and applications: Recent advances (S. 411). Hershey.Google Scholar
  77. Sage, K. (2014). What pace is best? Assessing adults’ learning from slideshows and video. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 23(1), 91–108.Google Scholar
  78. Santos-Espino, J. M., Afonso-Suárez, M. D., & Guerra-Artal, C. (2016). Speakers and boards: A survey of instructional video styles in MOOCs. Technical Communication, 63(2), 101–115.Google Scholar
  79. Seymour, N. E., Gallagher, A. G., Roman, S. A., O’brien, M. K., Bansal, V. K., Andersen, D. K., & Satava, R. M. (2002). Virtual reality training improves operating room performance: Results of a randomized, double-blinded study. Annals of Surgery, 236(4), 458.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  80. Sherer, P., & Shea, T. (2011). Using online video to support student learning and engagement. College Teaching, 59(2), 56–59.Google Scholar
  81. Simpson, B. J. (1966). The classification of educational objectives: Psychomotor domain. Illinois Journal of Home Economics, 10(4), 110–144.Google Scholar
  82. 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.Google Scholar
  83. Thompson, S. E. (2003). Text-structuring metadiscourse, intonation and the signalling of organisation in academic lectures. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 2(1), 5–20.Google Scholar
  84. Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V., & Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 19–37.Google Scholar
  85. Tulving, E., & Kroll, N. (1995). Novelty assessment in the brain and long-term memory encoding. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2(3), 387–390.Google Scholar
  86. Tuma, R., Schnettler, B., & Knoblauch, H. (2013). Videographie. Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien.Google Scholar
  87. Virtanen, M. A., Kääriäinen, M., Liikanen, E., & Haavisto, E. (2017). Use of Ubiquitous 360 learning environment enhances students’ knowledge in clinical histotechnology: A Quasi-Experimental study. Medical Science Educator, 27(4), 589–596.Google Scholar
  88. Von Konsky, B. R., Ivins, J., & Gribble, S. J. (2009). Lecture attendance and web based lecture technologies: A comparison of student perceptions and usage patterns. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 25(4).Google Scholar
  89. Wachtler, J., & Ebner, M. (2015). Impacts of interactions in learning-videos: A subjective and objective analysis. In EdMedia: World conference on educational media and technology (S. 1611–1619). Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Norfolk, Virginia.Google Scholar
  90. Wannemacher, K., von Imke Jungermann, U. M., Scholz, J., Tercanli, H., & von Villiez, A. (2016). Digitale Lernszenarien im Hochschulbereich. Im Auftrag der Themengruppe „Innovationen in Lern-und Prüfungsszenarien“ koordiniert vom CHE im Hochschulforum Digitalisierung, Arbeitspapier, (15).Google Scholar
  91. Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggs, R. O., & Nunamaker, J. F. (2006). Instructional video in e-learning: Assessing the impact of interactive video on learning effectiveness. Information & Management, 43(1), 15–27.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Psychologisches InstitutJohannes Gutenberg-Universität MainzMainzDeutschland

Personalised recommendations