1
Instructional Video for Enhancing Student
Learning
Background and Problem Identification
This Teaching Intervention focuses on the introduction of instructional videos to a Level 2 Physical
Geography laboratory component “Physical Analysis of Natural Materials”. This component was taught
simultaneously between two similar, but independent, Level 2 modules; Research Skills in Geography (for
Geography BSc students) and Research Skills in Physical Geography (for Physical Geography BSc
students). Typically, between 160 and 180 students (combined) are enrolled on this component, and are
divided into five smaller groups. Each group has three practical classes during Semester 1, fortnightly
(Figure 1), and as a consequence, includes up to 45 hours of teaching time in the laboratory. Additional
preparatory lectures and summary sessions can increase this teaching load by a further 12 hours, without
taking into account the component’s administration that is lengthy for the large cohort of students.
In previous years, this had been a team-taught component, but due to departmental staffing changes at the
beginning of the 2013/14 Academic Year, I took on responsibility for delivering all taught sessions with the
help of three technicians and one postgraduate demonstrator that were available during the laboratory
practicals. Furthermore, instructional lectures (denoted P1, P2 and P3 in Figure 1) were unfavourably
timetabled in the week previous to three of the laboratory practicals (P1a, P1b and so on), and two weeks
prior to the remaining two laboratory slots. Consequently, students in Group E, for example, had a 13 day
gap between receiving verbal instructions and conducting their experiments.
A longer-standing issue with this component reflects the naturally high cognitive load placed on students
conducting experiments for the first time in a laboratory. In most instances, students have little experience
operating in such an environment, and even less experience using the equipment and materials specific to the
course. Coupled with this, laboratory work must be conducted precisely and accurately, following strict,
sequential steps. Without prior knowledge of the environment, equipment and materials, being able to absorb
and follow seemingly straightforward instructions becomes difficult, and often leads to uncertainties and
errors during the laboratory practicals.
Traditionally, students were guided through the experiments in a one-hour preparatory session given before
the laboratory practicals, with detailed written instructions also provided in the form of Laboratory Technical
Leaflets. Yet despite this, students often struggled completing the laboratory practicals autonomously, or to a
satisfactory standard with regards to the component’s learning outcomes.
Thus, the specific aims of this Teaching Intervention were to:
1. Develop a more effective and efficient way of providing instructions to students.
2
2. Improve the student’s meaningful learning through integrating instructional videos.
3. Enhance the learning experience of students undertaking the practical classes.
Week 2
Mon
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Lecture 1
Week 3
Week 4
Week 5
Week 6
Week 7
Week 8
Week 9
Mon
Mon
Mon
Mon
Mon
Mon
Mon
Fri
Sat
Sun
Fri
Sat
Sun
Sat
Sun
P1
Tues
Wed
Thurs
P1a
P1b
P1c
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
P1d
P1e
P2
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
P2a
P2b
P2c
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
P2d
P2e
P3
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
P3a
P3b
P3c
Tues
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
P3d
P3e
Wed
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
Thurs
Fri
Sat
Sun
Tues
Lecture 2
Week 10
Mon
Tues
Wed
Surgery
Figure 1. Timetable for “Physical Analysis of Natural Materials” illustrating the gap between P1, P2 and P3, and the
subsequent practicals (denoted P1a, P1b, P1b and so on).
Learning through Instructional Video
Video is a rich and powerful medium which can be used effectively to deliver instructions from a teacher to a
learner without the need for one-to-one personal interaction, promoting proactive, unlimited and random
access to learning and learning materials (Zhang et al., 2006). The associated benefits include: time and
location flexibility; encouragement of self-directed and self-paced learning; promoting a collaborative
learning environment, and; permitting students to view realistic situations and sequences in motion (Zhang et
al., 2006). Furthermore, Hampapur and Jain (1998), Syed (2001) and Zhang et al. (2006) all noted that
3
multimedia provides a multi-sensory learning environment that may improve the learner’s ability to retain
key information, whilst Wetzel et al. (1994) commented on the positive impact of video instruction on a
leaner’s interest in a particular subject.
There are, however, several counterarguments for using animation and video in a learning environment. In
their study, Koroghlanian and Klein (2004) concluded that participants who received instructions via video
animation rather than static illustrations and text, spent more time studying with no corresponding gains in
terms of learning. Lowe (1999; 2003) similarly argued that this was largely a consequence of saliency within
the animations that detracted from the subtle components of the instruction being given, whereas Mayer et al.
(2001) argued that learning is inhibited where animation is used, as greater cognitive demand is required to
process the information presented. As a consequence, a swathe of research has been conducted on video
instruction and the demands placed on the working memory and understanding cognitive load theory (CLT;
see Table 1) (e.g. Mayer et al., 2001; Ploetzner and Lowe, 2004).
Table 1. Three categories of cognitive load theory and types of cognitive processing in multimedia learning.
Sources: Paas et al. (2003), van Merrienboer and Paas (1998), van Merrienboer and Ayres (2005), Mayer and
Moreno (2003).
Intrinsic load/
The “natural” load placed by information needed to be acquired, consisting of
Essential processing
interactive elements to be processed simultaneously in working memory to understand
the information.
Extraneous load/
The load imposed by the instructions themselves, governed by the instructional
Incidental processing designer. Increases where nonessential information is presented.
Germane load/
Refers to the working memory resources required to acquire and understand the
Representational
information (i.e. holding verbal or visual instruction in memory)
holding
CLT essentially dictates that if the extraneous load is high, students’ learning will be impeded, and
consequently, instructional design must be considered to limit the additional cognitive load placed on a
learner. Not only is this governed by the quality of the information presented, but how the instructions are
delivered (audio, pictures, text) and how they are received (ears, eyes). Mayer and Moreno (2003) and Ayres
and Paas (2007) discussed the importance of reducing cognitive load, and indeed, the former suggested a
number of alternative ways in which to do so including: using multi-sensory video animation (audio and
animation); pretraining (giving advance instruction); segmenting (using clear steps in a clear sequence);
weeding (presenting only necessary information), and; aligning and synchronising words and pictures. These
were taken into account during instructional design.
Instructional Design for Laboratory Videos
A fundamental step in reducing extraneous cognitive load is through effective instructional design. In
acknowledgement of the work of Mayer and Moreno (2003), and being conscious of the module’s delivery
and learning outcomes, a set of criteria were considered during the design of each video (Table 2). Once
suitable planned, videos were recorded in the laboratory using a plug-and-play FlipCam and edited using
Microsoft’s Movie Maker.
4
Table 2. Instructional design considerations
Criterion
Rationale
Concisely formed
In order to minimise extraneous load, videos must be short (5-10 minutes), but not at
the expense of meeting other criteria.
Well-paced
Each individual step in the exercise must be demonstrated at a suitable pace so that
students can view the subtle processing steps. This will also show that experiments
should not be rushed and there is time to complete the practical in a timely manner.
Students must be able to pause and rewind the video.
Well-structured
The structure of the video must match that given in the written instructions and
verbally in preparatory lectures.
Accessible
Each student must be able to access the videos. The videos must also be suitable to
view on a range of devices.
Scientifically accurate
The correct processes, materials, equipment should be demonstrated, and portrayed
using the correct terminology.
Promote a safe
Videos must show the demonstrators adhering to strict health and safety guidelines.
working environment
The main issue associated with the instructional design of the videos was whether to complement the
demonstrator’s actions with audible commentary or on-screen text captions. According to Mayer and
Moreno (2003) and Ayres and Pass (2007), providing audio commentary (ears) to match the visual
demonstration (eyes) will lead to more effective learning than providing both in the visual channel with
onscreen text captions (eyes) and the visual demonstration (eyes). However, these studies referred to
situations where video instruction was the only means of delivering information to students, whereas in this
example, it was one of three ways.
Elsewhere, Hegarty and Just (1989) showed that learners are capable of reading short captions and
integrating this information to the graphics. Moreno and Mayer (1999) also promoted this integrated
presentation of video instruction, and found that students who have access to such instructional videos
performed better on problem-solving tasks. As a result, to reduce cognitive load, spatial alignment of words
and animation was used for the instruction videos. The associated benefit of this is that students could pause
the video yet still receive instruction corresponding to the screenshot.
Finally, the videos were uploaded to Aberystwyth University’s Helix Media Library, encoded, and then
added to the appropriate folder within the module’s Blackboard page. Each student was able to access the
videos, and view them on a range of devices, including laptops, tablets and mobile phones.
Evaluation of Instructional Videos
At the end of the module, students were encouraged to complete a short questionnaire via a Google Poll
regarding the instructional videos. In total, 56 students responded, which equates to roughly 1/3 of the class.
Here, the results are analysed.
Of the 56 students who took the survey, 3% said that they had watched at least one video, 45% at least once
per video, and 52% watched multiple videos, multiple times (Figure 2a). Thirty-one percent of the videos
were watched on campus, with 55% watched at in the students’ homes (Figure 2b). Videos were watched on
5
laptops (59%), desktops (18%), smartphones (18%) and tablets (10%) (Figure 2c), with some students even
watching the videos as they were conducting the experiments (Figure 3).
Figure 2d shows how the videos were used the most, with students also commenting that the videos were
beneficial because they provided “step-by-step instructions without being spoon fed”. Many students
commented on how clear they made the practical, and how they “made it easier to remember” the
information when it came to conducting the experiments. Students also commented on “the concise yet
detailed” information, and how the videos made the laboratory sessions “more appealing” and “engaging”. In
total, 97% of students agreed that the information presented was very good or detailed, with 3% agreeing that
the information was sufficient (Figure 2e). One respondent commented that the videos had made the
laboratory sessions more “accessible because of my dyslexia”.
When quizzed about their preferred method of receiving laboratory instruction, 5% opted for the verbal
instructions given in the lecture and during the practical sessions, 32% preferred the written instructions in
the technical leaflets, and 63% said that the videos were favoured (Figure 4). Eighty-five percent of students
said that they felt they engaged with the laboratory work because of the videos (Figure 5), with 100% of
those who provided answers saying that they either agreed or strongly agreed that the videos made the
laboratory work more appealing and easier to understand (Figure 5). Several students also commented on the
benefits of being able to “pause and rewind parts” that had been “misheard or not understood properly”.
Finally, 81% of students reported that there had been an increase in their analytical skills after watching the
videos, with 70% noticing an improvement in their numeracy and subject-specific skills (Figure 5).
Students appeared hesitant in critiquing the videos with most students either not providing a response or
suggesting that they “could not be improved”. Several students, however, noted that when streaming the
videos, if paused for a small amount of time (one minute), the videos reset to the beginning. This turned out
to be a consequence of the Helix Media Library and was largely out of my, or their, control.
6
Figure 2. Summary of student’s responses regarding the use of instructional videos.
7
Figure 3. Level 2 students streaming an instructional video in the laboratory on an iPad.
Figure 4. Students’ preferred method of receiving instructions for the laboratory sessions.
8
Figure 5. Summary of student’s responses regarding the benefits of instructional videos.
Interpretation
The Teaching Intervention had three main aims that form the basis for a critique and discussion of the
project.
1. Develop a more effective and efficient way of providing instructions to students
It is clear from the students’ feedback that the videos were effective in terms of receiving instructions. Many
students acknowledged that they had used the videos to create their own personal step-by-step instructions,
with others using them to strengthen the instructions given on the technical leaflets and verbally in the
preparatory lectures. Students, on the whole, preferred the videos to more traditional methods of receiving
instructions, owing to their time and location flexibility. Certainly for those students with learning
difficulties such as dyslexia, this form of instruction also proved to be more beneficial than traditional
methods as they could match words with visuals.
From a teaching perspective, it was noted by the experienced laboratory technicians that far fewer basic
questions were being asked, with more in-depth conversations taking place between staff and students.
Indeed, it was also evident that fewer mistakes were made this year than any of the previous six (based on
my experience of teaching on the module). This was seen as a positive as it increased the expedient contact
time with students who wished to discuss the work in more detail, thus allowing deeper learning.
Improve the student’s meaningful learning through integrating instructional videos.
According to the students, the instructional videos helped improved their analytical, numeracy and subjectspecific skills, suggesting that the videos provided more than just immediate instructions that were held in
9
the working memory. Whilst difficult to quantify the ‘meaningful learning’ aspect, their final laboratory
reports showed that, on average, grades were 4% higher than the previous two year’s cohorts. Furthermore,
as noted above, our experienced technicians and I noticed a significant decrease in basic errors being made
throughout the course. Otherwise, only the students can critically assess the impact of the instructional
videos on their meaningful learning.
Enhance the learning experience of students undertaking the practical classes.
From the students’ perspective, the instructional videos appeared to have made the experience of the
laboratory practicals a positive one, with many noticing an improvement in their skills and engagement with
the component. The lack of negativity towards the videos also suggests that they did indeed enhance the
learning environment and experience of the students, and informal conversations with students recently
(April 2014) highlighted that the component was one of the better academic courses that had been sat. The
course was also Highly Commended at the 2014 Aberystwyth University’s Blackboard Exemplary Course
Awards for its integration of technology to teaching.
Summary
This Teaching Intervention set out to integrate instructional videos into a Level 2 Physical Geography
laboratory practical component in order to: develop a more effective and efficient way of providing
instructions to students; improve their meaningful learning, and; enhance their learning experience. A
detailed analysis of feedback suggests that each of the aims was achieved. Students acknowledged that
instruction videos were the preferred way of receiving instructions, with the majority of those questioned
also showing that they engaged with the laboratory work because of the videos, as they made the work more
appealing. Whilst few comments were made concerning how the videos could be improved, it is evident that
minor changes regarding how videos were streamed is required for future cohorts.
References
Ayres, P. and Paas, F. 2007. Making Instructional Animations More Effective: A Cognitive Load Approach.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 695-700.
Hampapur, A. and Jain, R. 1998. Video Data Management Systems: Metadata and Architecture. In: Klas, W.
and Sheth, A. (Eds). Multimedia Data Management. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Hegarty, M. and Just, M.A. 1989. Understanding Machines from Text and Diagrams. In: Mandl, H. and
Levin, J.R. (Eds) Knowledge Acquisition from Text and Pictures. Elsevier.
Klein, J. and Koroghlanian, C. 2004. The Effect of Audio and Animation in Multimedia Instruction. Journal
of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (1), 23-46.
10
Lowe, R.K. 1999. Extracting Information from an Animation during Complex Visual Learning. European
Journal of Psychology of education, 14, 225-244.
Lowe, R.K. 2003. Animation and Learning: Selective Processing of Information in Dynamic Graphics.
Learning and Instruction, 13, 157-176.
Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. 2003. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning.
Educational Psychologist, 38 (1), 43-52.
Mayer, R.E., Heiser, J. and Lonn, S. 2001. Cognitive Constraints on Multimedia Learning: When Presenting
More Material Results in Less Understanding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 187-198.
Moreno, R. and Mayer, R.E. 1999. Cognitive Principles of Multimedia Learning: The Role of Modality and
Contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 358-368.
Paas, F., Tuovinen, J.E., Tabbers, H. and van Gerven, P.W.M. 2003. Cognitive Load Measurements as a
means to Advance Cognitive Load Theory. Educational Psychologist, 38, 63-71.
Ploestzner, R. and Lowe, R. (Eds). 2004. Dynamic Visualisations and Learning. Learning and Instruction,
14, 235-240.
Syed, M.R. 2001. Diminishing the Distance in Distance Education. IEEE Multimedia, 8 (3), 18-21.
van Merriënboer, J.J.G. and Ayres, P. 2005. Research on Cognitive Load Theory and its Design
Iimplications for e-Learning. Educational technology Research and Development, 53, 5-13.
van Merriënboer, J.J.G. and Paas, F. 1998. Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational
Psychology Review, 10 (3), 251-296.
Wetzel, C.D., Radtke, R.H. and Stern, H.W. 1994. Instructional Effectiveness of Video Media. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Zhang, D., Zhou, L., Briggss, R.O. and Nunmaker Jr, J.F. 2006. Instructional Video in e-Learning: Assessing
the Impact of Interactive Video on Learning Effectiveness. Information Management, 43, 15-27.