Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
research-article

Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance

Published: 01 January 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Although online courseware often includes multimedia materials, exactly how different video lecture types impact student performance has seldom been studied. Therefore, this study explores how three commonly used video lectures styles affect the sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance of verbalizers and visualizers in an autonomous online learning scenario by using a two-factor experimental design, brainwave detection, emotion-sensing equipment, cognitive load scale, and learning performance test sheet. Analysis results indicate that, while the three video lecture types enhance learning performance, learning performance with lecture capture and picture-in-picture types is superior to that associated with the voice-over type. Verbalizers and visualizers achieve the same learning performance with the three video types. Additionally, sustained attention induced by the voice-over type is markedly higher than that with the picture-in-picture type. Sustained attention of verbalizers is also significantly higher than that of visualizers when learning with the three video lectures. Moreover, the positive and negative emotions induced by the three video lectures do not appear to significantly differ from each other. Also, cognitive load related to the voice-over type is significantly higher than that with by the lecture capture and picture-in-picture types. Furthermore, the cognitive load for visualizers markedly exceeds that of verbalizers who are presented with the voice-over type. Results of this study significantly contribute to efforts to design of video lectures and also provide a valuable reference when selecting video lecture types for online learning. Learning performance with lecture capture and picture-in-picture is superior to voice-over type.Verbalizers and visualizers have the same learning performance with three video types.Voice-over type generates the higher sustained attention than picture-in-picture type.Voice-over type generates the highest cognitive load in three video lecture types.Emotions induced by three video lectures do not appear significantly differences.

References

[1]
P. Ayres, J. Sweller, The split-attention principle in multimedia learning, in: Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2005, pp. 135-146.
[2]
H. Astleitner, C. Wiesner, An integrated model of multimedia learning and motivation, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 13 (2004) 3-21.
[3]
J.N. Bassili, Media richness and social norms in the choice to attend lectures or to watch them online, Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 17 (2008) 453-475.
[4]
H.D. Brecht, S.M. Ogilby, Enabling a comprehensive teaching strategy: Video lectures, Journal of Information Technology Education, 7 (2008) 71-86.
[5]
D.E. Broadbent, Perception and communication, Pergamon press, London, 1958.
[6]
L.M. Butcher-Powell, Teaching, learning and multimedia. interactive multimedia in education and training, 2004.
[7]
S. Carter, Is this the stuff that marketers are made of?, European Journal of Marketing, 19 (1985) 53-64.
[8]
P. Chandler, J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory and the format of instruction, Cognition and Instruction, 8 (1991) 293-332.
[9]
C.M. Chen, Y.J. Lin, Effects of different text display types on reading comprehension, sustained attention and cognitive load in mobile reading contexts, Interactive Learning Environments (2014).
[10]
C.M. Chen, Y.C. Sun, Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials on emotions and learning performance for visual and verbal style learners, Computers & Education, 59 (2012) 1273-1285.
[11]
C.M. Chen, H.P. Wang, Using emotion recognition technology to assess the effects of different multimedia materials on learning emotion and performance, Library & Information Science Research, 33 (2011) 244-255.
[12]
T.L. Childers, M.J. Houston, S.E. Heckler, Measurement of individual differences in visual versus verbal information processing, Journal of Consumer Research, 12 (1985) 125-134.
[13]
C.M. Chen, S.H. Huang, Web-based reading annotation system with an attention-based self-regulated learning mechanism for promoting reading performance, British Journal of Educational Technology, 45 (2014) 959-980.
[14]
Y.H. Cheng, J.T. Cheng, D.J. Chen, The effect of multimedia computer assisted instruction and learning style on learning achievement, WSEAS Transactions on Information Science and Applications, 9 (2012) 24-35.
[15]
K. Chorianopoulos, M.N. Giannakos, Usability design for video lectures, in: The 11th European Conference on interactive TV and video, June 24-26, Como, Italy, 2013, pp. 163-164.
[16]
R.B. Church, S. Ayman-Nolley, S. Mahootian, The role of gesture in bilingual education: does gesture enhance learning?, International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 7 (2004) 303-319.
[17]
R.L. Daft, R.H. Lengel, Organizational information requirements, media richness and structural design, Management Science, 32 (1986) 554-571.
[18]
J. Danielson, V. Preast, H. Bender, L. Hassall, Is the effectiveness of lecture capture related to teaching approach or content type?, Computers & Education, 72 (2013) 121-131.
[19]
J. Day, J. Foley, R. Catrambone, Investigating multimedia learning with web lectures, Georgia Institute of Technology, GA, 2006.
[20]
J. Driver, A selective review of selective attention research from the past century, British Journal of Psychology, 92 (2001) 53-78.
[21]
R.S. Dunn, S.A. Griggs, Practical approaches to using learning styles in higher education, Bergin & Garvey, Westport, 2000.
[22]
T.H. Eysink, T. de Jong, K. Berthold, B. Kolloffel, M. Opfermann, P. Wouters, Learner performance in multimedia learning arrangements: an analysis across instructional approaches, American Educational Research Journal, 46 (2009) 1107-1149.
[23]
G. Friedland, Solving the divided attention problem in lecture recordings, in: 2. Doktorandenworkshop des Instituts für Informatik, Department of Computer Science, Freie Universität Berlin, 2004.
[24]
D.K. Griffin, D. Mitchell, S.J. Thompson, Podcasting by synchronising PowerPoint and voice: what are the pedagogical benefits?, Computers & Education, 53 (2009) 532-539.
[25]
C.N. Gunawardena, Social presence theory and implications for interaction and collaborative learning in computer conferences, International Journal of Educational Telecommunications, 1 (1995) 147-166.
[26]
J.L. Hardy, D. Drescher, K. Sarkar, G. Kellett, M. Scanlon, Enhancing visual attention and working memory with a web-based cognitive training program, Mensa Research Journal, 42 (2011) 13-20.
[27]
B.D. Homer, J.L. Plass, L. Blake, The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning, Computers in Human Behavior, 24 (2008) 786-797.
[28]
K. Hornbæk, D.T. Engberg, J. Gomme, Video Lectures: HCI and e-learning challenges, in: Workshop on Human-computer interaction and E-learning, 2002.
[29]
C. Ilioudi, M.N. Giannakos, K. Chorianopoulos, Investigating differences among the commonly used video lecture styles, in: WAVe 2013 the Workshop on Analytics on video-based learning, 2013, pp. 21-26.
[30]
S. Kalyuga, P. Chandler, J. Sweller, Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia learning, Applied Cognitive Psychology, 13 (1999) 351-371.
[31]
F. Karakaya, T.L. Ainscough, J. Chopoorian, The effects of class size and learning style on student performance in a multimedia-based marketing course, Journal of Marketing Education, 23 (2001) 84-90.
[32]
R.H. Kay, Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: a comprehensive review of the literature, Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (2012) 820-831.
[33]
B. Kollöffel, Exploring the relation between visualizer-verbalizer cognitive styles and performance with visual or verbal learning material, Computers & Education, 58 (2012) 697-706.
[34]
V.N. Kettanurak, K. Ramamurthy, W.D. Haseman, User attitude as a mediator of learning performance improvement in an interactive multimedia environment: an empirical investigation of the degree of interactivity and learning styles, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54 (2001) 541-583.
[35]
F.R. Kappe, L. Boekholt, C. Den Rooyen, H. Van der Flier, A predictive validity study of the Learning Style Questionnaire (LSQ) using multiple, specific learning criteria, Learning and Individual differences, 19 (2009) 464-467.
[36]
M.K.O. Lee, C.M.K. Cheung, Z. Chen, Understanding user acceptance of multimedia messaging services: an empirical study, Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 58 (2007) 2066-2077.
[37]
K.H. Lim, I. Benbasat, The effect of multimedia on perceived equivocality and perceived usefulness of information systems, MIS Quarterly, 24 (2000) 449-471.
[38]
C. Latham, Heart rate variability as an index of regulated emotional responding, Review of General Psychology, 10 (2006) 229-240.
[39]
L.J. Massa, R.E. Mayer, Testing the ATI hypothesis: should multimedia instruction accommodate verbalizer-visualizer cognitive style?, Learning and Individual Differences, 16 (2006) 321-335.
[40]
R.E. Mayer, Multimedia learning, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001.
[41]
R.E. Mayer, L.J. Massa, Three facets of visual and verbal learners: cognitive ability, cognitive style, and learning preference, Journal of Educational Psychology, 95 (2003) 833-846.
[42]
R.E. Mayer, R. Moreno, A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: evidence for dual processing systems in working memory, Journal of educational psychology, 90 (1998) 312.
[43]
R.E. Mayer, Does styles research have useful implications for educational practice?, Learning and Individual Differences, 21 (2011) 319-320.
[44]
R. Moreno, R. Mayer, H. Spires, J. Lester, The case for social agency in computer-based teaching: do students learn more deeply when they interact with animated pedagogical agents?, Cognition and Instruction, 19 (2001) 177-213.
[45]
S.Y. Mousavi, R. Low, J. Sweller, Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes, Journal of Educational Psychology, 87 (1995) 319-334.
[46]
R. McCraty, M. Atkinson, W.A. Tiller, G. Rein, A.D. Watkins, The effects of emotions on short-term power spectrum analysis of heart rate variability, American Journal of Cardiology, 76 (1995) 1089-1093.
[47]
U. Ocepek, Z. Bosnić, I.N. Šerbec, J. Rugelj, Exploring the relation between learning style models and preferred multimedia types, Computers & Education, 69 (2013) 343-355.
[48]
D.S. Osborn, Using video lectures to teach a graduate career development course, 2010. http://counselingoutfitters.com/vistas/vistas10/Article_35.pdf
[49]
G. Rebolledo-Mendez, I. Dunwell, E. Martínez-Mirón, M. Vargas-Cerdán, S. de Freitas, F. Liarokapis, Assessing NeuroSky's usability to detect attention levels in an assessment exercise, 2009.
[50]
D.R. Rutter, Looking and seeing: the role of visual communication in social interaction, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1984.
[51]
F. Schmidt-Weigand, A. Kohnert, U. Glowalla, A closer look at split visual attention in system-and self-paced instruction in multimedia learning, Learning and Instruction, 20 (2010) 100-110.
[52]
J. Shorter, R. Dean, Computing in collegiate schools of business: are mainframes & stand-alone microcomputers still good enough?, Journal of Systems Management, 45 (1994) 36-41.
[53]
S.M. Smith, P.C. Woody, Interactive effect of multimedia instruction and learning styles, Teaching of Psychology, 27 (2000) 220-224.
[54]
P.C. Sun, H.K. Cheng, The design of instructional multimedia in e-learning: a Media richness theory-based approach, Computers and Education, 49 (2007) 662-676.
[55]
J. Sweller, Instructional design in technical areas, Australian Council for Educational Research, Camberwell, Victoria, Australia, 1999.
[56]
J. Sweller, J.J.G. van Merriënboer, F.G.W.C. Paas, Cognitive architecture and instructional design, Educational Psychology Review, 10 (1998) 251-296.
[57]
J. Sweller, Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design, Learning and Instruction, 4 (1994) 295-312.
[58]
S.D. Sorden, A cognitive approach to instructional design for multimedia learning, Informing Science Journal, 8 (2005) 263-279.
[59]
W.A. Tiller, R. McCraty, M. Atkinson, Cardiac coherence: a new, noninvasive measure of autonomic nervous system order, Alternative Therapies in Health and Medicine, 2 (1996) 52-65.
[60]
L. Valenzeno, M.W. Alibali, R. Klatzky, Teacher's gesture facilitate students' learning: a lesson in symmetry, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28 (2003) 187-204.
[61]
T. van Gog, K. Scheiter, Eye tracking as a tool to study and enhance multimedia learning, Learning and Instruction, 20 (2010) 95-99.
[62]
C. Wiese, G. Newton, Use of lecture capture in undergraduate biological science education, The Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 4 (2013).

Cited By

View all
  1. Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image Computers & Education
    Computers & Education  Volume 80, Issue C
    January 2015
    241 pages

    Publisher

    Elsevier Science Ltd.

    United Kingdom

    Publication History

    Published: 01 January 2015

    Author Tags

    1. Distance education and telelearning
    2. Evaluation methodologies
    3. Interactive learning environments
    4. Media in education

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)0
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 09 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)Comparing human-made and AI-generated teaching videosComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105164224:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
    • (2025)Is anybody watchingComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105148222:COnline publication date: 7-Jan-2025
    • (2024)Focus on Cooperation: A Face-to-Face VR Serious Game for Relationship EnhancementIEEE Transactions on Affective Computing10.1109/TAFFC.2023.330619815:3(913-928)Online publication date: 1-Jul-2024
    • (2024)Enhancing learner experience with instructor cues in video lectures: A comprehensive exploration and design discovery toward a novel gaze visualizationEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12697-w29:16(21411-21447)Online publication date: 1-Nov-2024
    • (2024)The impacts of instructor’s visual attention and lecture type on students' learning performance and perceptionsEducation and Information Technologies10.1007/s10639-024-12512-629:13(16469-16497)Online publication date: 12-Feb-2024
    • (2024)Change gently: an agent-based virtual interview training for college students with great shynessVirtual Reality10.1007/s10055-024-01076-y29:1Online publication date: 20-Dec-2024
    • (2023)Analysis of learning behaviour in immersive virtual realityJournal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems: Applications in Engineering and Technology10.3233/JIFS-23138345:4(5927-5938)Online publication date: 1-Jan-2023
    • (2023)Scripted Vicarious Dialogues: Educational Video Augmentation Method for Increasing Isolated Students’ EngagementProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3581153(1-25)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Pedagogical discourse markers in online algebra learningComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104897205:COnline publication date: 1-Nov-2023
    • (2023)Measuring emotions in education using wearable devicesComputers & Education10.1016/j.compedu.2023.104797200:COnline publication date: 24-May-2023
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    View options

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media