a taxonomy of video lecture styles - arxiv · 2020. 1. 1. · a taxonomy of video lecture styles...

A taxonomy of video lecture stylesKonstantinos Chorianopoulos1

1 This document is a preprint copy bythe author, please use the followingofficial reference to cite it in your work:Chorianopoulos, K. (2018). A taxonomyof asynchronous instructional video styles.The International Review of Research inOpen and Distributed Learning. 19(1)

15 January 2018

Many educational organizations are employing instructional videoin their pedagogy, but there is limited understanding of the possiblepresentation styles. In practice, the presentation style of video lecturesranges from a direct recording of classroom teaching with a stationarycamera and screencasts with voice-over, up to highly elaborate videopost-production. Previous work evaluated the effectiveness of severalpresentation styles, but there has not been any consistent taxonomy,which would have made comparisons and meta-analyses possible.In this article, we surveyed the research literature and we examinedcontemporary video-based courses, which have been produced by di-verse educational organizations and teachers across various academicdisciplines. We organized video lectures in two dimensions accordingto the level of human presence and according to the type of instruc-tional media. In addition to organizing existing video lectures in acomprehensive way, the proposed taxonomy offers a design spacethat facilitates the choice of a suitable presentation style, as well as thepreparation of new ones.

Figure 1: Popular contemporary video-based learning platforms providewidely different instructional video for-mats, but there is limited understand-ing of the main production and stylefactors that guide the selection of oneover another: MIT OpenCourseware,Khan Academy, Coursera, Udacity

Video lectures have been growing and many individuals, or-ganizations, and universities are employing them in various instruc-tional frameworks, such as distance education and flipped class-rooms. Alongside the wide availability of online video lectures onvarious topics, there is also a wide diversity of video productionstyles. In many cases, the same topic (e.g., statistics), is transferred tothe instructional video format with very different presentation styles.Thus, every organization, or individual that produces instructionalvideos has to make an informed decision on the available videostyles. Nevertheless, there is limited documentation on the mainattributes of each instructional video style. Therefore, there is a needto organize instructional video styles in a simple way that facilitatesthe choice and the creation of novel styles.

In order to create a taxonomy of instructional video productionstyles, we need to identify the main distribution platforms, as well

arX

iv:1

801.

0605

0v2

[cs

.CY

] 2

9 D

ec 2

019

a taxonomy of video lecture styles 2

as representative examples. Besides the educational video reposito-ries (e.g., YouTubeEdu, iTunesU, MIT Open Courseware, VideoLec-tures.net, TEDEd, etc), there is also a growing number of organiza-tions that offer video-based learning, such as Coursera, Udacity, EdX,Khan Academy, FutureLearn, and Iversity. A survey of the availablevideos and of the state-of-the-art has revealed that the selection ofa production style for a video lecture depends on the instructor’spreference and feasibility, or on the organizational (platform) guide-lines, rather than a structured theory. For example, all Udacity videoshave the same presentation style. On the other hand, the videos onYouTubeEdu (a video lecture repository) have significant variability.In contemporary instructional video repositories, the most popularproduction style is the direct recording at the classroom, or at theteacher office with one camera.

There are several video platforms that facilitate established univer-sities and instructors in preparing and sharing instructional video. Inaddition to the generic video platforms (e.g., YouTubeEdu, iTunesU),in the USA there are Coursera, EdX, and Udacity. In Europe, themain ones are FutureLearn (UK) and Iversity (EU). Notably, eachone of the major video-based education providers seems to feel veryconfident about its approach to video presentation style and has aconsistent style across the video archive and across different sub-jects and disciplines. For example, Shalman Khan, the founder ofthe Khan Academy has noted (Thompson 2011)2: "That way, it does 2 Clive Thompson. How khan academy

is changing the rules of education, Jul2011. URL http://www.wired.com/

2011/07/ff_khan/

not seem like I am up on a stage lecturing down at you. It is inti-mate, like we are both sitting at a table and we are working throughsomething together, writing on a piece of paper."

On the other hand, the Coursera platform suggests a teacher-centered presentation style, which positions the teacher next to theslides, or at an over-imposed small window (picture-in-picture).Finally, Udacity takes the middle road and displays mostly the handof the teacher, who writes and gestures on an interactive drawingboard. Despite the major differences in the production styles, thereare also some common patterns, such as the presence of humans andthe use of complementary instructional media. In this article, we areexploring the main instructional video classification factors and theirnuances.

In the rest of this article, we describe the main factors that affectthe presentation style of video lectures. For this purpose, we haveanalyzed the state-of-the-art in the research literature and in the in-dustry. The analysis of the research literature was based on extensiveGoogle Scholar keyword searches (e.g., "instructional video", "videolecture", "MOOC") and the selection of a few recent articles (laterthan 2010) that have a very good number of citations per year (more

http://www.wired.com/2011/07/ff_khan/



than two yearly). The academic articles provided the theoreticalgroundwork for the taxonomy of the video lectures, which was thenrefined by performing a review of presentation styles in educationalvideo repositories. The review of presentation styles was focusedon a few major video platforms (YouTubeEdu, iTunesU, Coursera,Udacity, Khan Academy) and was aimed at collecting representativeexamples of different video styles, without regarding their actualpopularity, or other aspects of production quality.

Survey of instructional video styles in scholarly publications

Researchers have recognized that different video production stylesmight have different learning effects. In the largest study of videolecture presentation styles, Guo et al. (2014)3 have identified six basic 3 Philip J Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob

Rubin. How video production affectsstudent engagement: An empiricalstudy of mooc videos. In Proceedingsof the first ACM conference on Learning@scale conference, pages 41–50. ACM, 2014

types of video production style: 1) classroom lecture with instructoron the blackboard, 2) talking head of instructor at desk, 3) digitaldrawing board (Khan-style), 4) slide presentation, 5) studio withoutaudience, and 6) computer coding session. Some notable findingsinclude that students prefer short videos, slides should include atalking head, the Khan drawing style is more engaging than slidesor coding sessions, and the direct classroom recording does not workwell online. Nevertheless, in their study, all the courses were from thesame platform (EdX) and all the courses are from science and engi-neering. Although previous empirical research has provided manyinsights about several video styles, the aggregate results are not com-parable because they do not have a common ground with regard tothe typology of video production styles. For example, there are manystudies that have examined screencasts, but ilioudi et al. (2013)4 men- 4 Christina Ilioudi, Michail N Gian-

nakos, and Konstantinos Chorianopou-los. Investigating differences amongthe commonly used video lecture styles.2013

tions Khan-style, which is technically a particular type of screencastthat records the pen-tip of the presenter on a digital drawing board.Therefore, there is a semantics issue with regard to the unit of analy-sis that might reduce the understanding, comparison, and extensionof previous works.

In order to identify existing instruction video styles and resolveany possible terminology ambiguities, we have organized previ-ous works according to two recurring themes: instructional media(e.g., slides, animation, type) and human embodiment (e.g., socialpresence, animated human, talking-head). Indeed, Santos-Espinoet al. (2016)5 examined the instructional video styles in contempo- 5 José Miguel Santos-Espino, María Do-

lores Afonso-Suárez, and CayetanoGuerra-Artal. Speakers and boards: Asurvey of instructional video styles inmoocs. Technical Communication, 63(2):101–115, 2016

rary MOOC platforms and classified them into two main categories:speaker-centric and board-centric. Although there are few instruc-tional videos that employ just one style, they found that courses inhumanities and arts emphasize the former, while science and engi-neering ones emphasize the latter. Social and life sciences employ a


balanced approach between the speaker-centric and board-centricstyles. Although they emphasize the use of the terms "speaker-centric" and "board-centric", we could generalize these two terms tothe broader notions "human embodiment" and "instructional media"respectively, which are more common in the learning sciences. More-over, it is worth considering the nuances along the two dimensions:human-embodiment and instructional media.

There are many studies that define a low-level unit of analysisthat regards very detailed aspects of instructional media. Sugar etal. (2010)6 have provided an analysis of instructional videos, which 6 William Sugar, Abbie Brown, and

Kenneth Luterbach. Examining theanatomy of a screencast: Uncoveringcommon elements and instructionalstrategies. The International Reviewof Research in Open and DistributedLearning, 11(3):1–20, 2010

are based on the screencasting style (recording of the screen). Theyfound that there are two types of screen movement: static or dynamic(follows the cursor). They also found that there are two types ofnarrative: explicit that describes the exact actions on the screen andimplicit, which describes the type of activity on the screen. Swarts(2012)7 examined screencasting videos with a focus on multime- 7 Jason Swarts. New modes of help:

Best practices for instructional video.Technical Communication, 59(3):195–206,2012

dia software courses and provided guidelines for the production ofgood video tutorials that belong to the screencasting presentationstyle. Video tutorials that explain the use of particular features ofcomputer software are a very popular category and many computerusers prefer to watch a demonstration than reading a paper manual.As a matter of fact, the popularity of these video tutorials has alsomade popular the screencasting style of video instruction. Cross et al.(2013)8 emphasized the use of digital writing on instructional video 8 Andrew Cross, Mydhili Bayyapunedi,

Edward Cutrell, Anant Agarwal, andWilliam Thies. Typerighting: combiningthe benefits of handwriting and type-face in online educational videos. InProceedings of the SIGCHI Conference onHuman Factors in Computing Systems,pages 793–796. ACM, 2013

and compared the use of handwriting to typefaces. They found thatlearners preferred handwriting, but they considered more legible thetypefaces, so they proposed a middle of the road approach that fadeshand-writing into a typeface as soon as a word is complete. ten Hoveand van der Meij (2015)9 analyzed the popularity of instructional

9 Petra ten Hove and Hans van derMeij. Like it or not. what characterizesyoutube’s more popular instructionalvideos? Technical communication, 62(1):48–62, 2015

videos on YouTube. Although "popularity" is not always correlatedwith effective pedagogy, it is indicative of contemporary learner ex-pectations. They found that popular instructional videos shared somecommon characteristics such as fast-pace, text highlights, static im-ages and animations, and high-definition production. Their analysisis the first that correlates particular production elements to effective-ness, but those elements are related mostly to planning and post-production, rather than presentation style. The above studies providemany insights into the design of instructional media in the context ofvideo lectures, but there is no coherent framework, besides puttingthem in the same category.

Another major category of studies regards the presence as wellas the type of human embodiment in the instructional video. Lyonset al. (2012)10 performed a longitudinal study (13 weeks), which 10 Alendra Lyons, Stephen Reysen,

and Lindsey Pierce. Video lectureformat, student technological efficacy,and social presence in online courses.Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1):181–186, 2012

compared the use of video lectures with (or without) a video of the


instructor at the top left of the screen. They found that students con-sidered the social presence of the instructor in the video to offer morelearning. Ilioudi et al (2013)11 compared the Khan-style to the class- 11 Christina Ilioudi, Michail N Gian-

nakos, and Konstantinos Chorianopou-los. Investigating differences amongthe commonly used video lecture styles.2013

room recording and found that there were no major differences inpreference, or learning performance between the two conditions.Chen and Wu (2015)12 compared three popular instructional video

12 Chih-Ming Chen and Chung-HsinWu. Effects of different video lecturetypes on sustained attention, emotion,cognitive load, and learning perfor-mance. Computers & Education, 80:108–121, 2015

styles: 1) direct classroom recording, 2) studio recorded video lec-tures with the video of the instructor superimposed to the slides, and3) office recording of the instructor video next to the slides (voice-over type). Although the latter style includes the presence of theinstructor, they refer to it as "voice-over type", because the slides andthe voice are the main elements. Kizilcec et al. (2015)13 compared the 13 René F Kizilcec, Jeremy N Bailenson,

and Charles J Gomez. The instruc-torâAZs face in video instruction: Evi-dence from two large-scale field studies.Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3):724, 2015

constant inclusion of a talking head in the video of a slide presen-tation to one with a moderate presence of the face of the presenter.They found that there were no significant differences in terms oflearning performance, but it seems that some students just prefer thepresence of the instructor’s face. Li et al. (2016)14 examined the ac- 14 Jamy Li, René Kizilcec, Jeremy Bailen-

son, and Wendy Ju. Social robots andvirtual agents as lecturers for video in-struction. Computers in Human Behavior,55:1222–1230, 2016

ceptance of a virtual avatar in place of the instructor’s talking head.They compare multiple alternatives in the place of the human in-structional video, such as animated human, animated robot, and realrobot. They found that learners preferred the real or animated hu-man condition to the real or animated robot, but the recall rates weremixed across conditions and genders. Mayer and DaPra (2012)15 15 Richard E Mayer and C Scott DaPra.

An embodiment effect in computer-based learning with animated peda-gogical agents. Journal of ExperimentalPsychology: Applied, 18(3):239, 2012

have found that learners prefer a human-like (e.g., voice, eye-contact,gestures) animated character. In particular, learners preferred real hu-man voice rather than computerized voice. The above studies providemany insights about the presence and types of human embodimentin the context of video lectures, but there is no coherent framework,besides putting them in the same category.

In summary, previous research on the production style of videolectures has provided evaluations of particular presentation styles,but it has not done so in the context of a consistent taxonomy. Theorganization of previous research in a table that highlights the mainclassification factors of instructional video styles facilitates some ob-servations. Firstly, there are differences between the formats testedby previous research. Notably, there are overlaps and ambiguitiesdue to the lack of a common framework and terminology. For exam-ple, some works have emphasized low-level elements (e.g., typeface),while other works have employed different terms for similar concepts(e.g., talking head, voice-over). In this way, the production style of avideo lecture has been classified in many different, or overlappingcategories, which makes it difficult to compare across studies, or toperform meta-analyses. Ideally, a coherent taxonomy would be inclu-sive of all existing styles and should facilitate the informed choice for


Style Reference

screencasting, screen movement,narration

Sugar et al. (2010)

screencasting Swarts (2012)animated human Mayer and DaPra (2012)

social presence Lyons et al. (2012)screencasting, khan-style,

handwriting, typefaceCross et al. (2013)

khan-style, classroom Ilioudi et al. (2013)khan-style, classroom, studio,

office-desk, code, slidesGuo et al. (2014)

classroom, voice-over,picture-in-picture

Chen and Wu (2015)

Static and dynamic pictures, text ten Hove and van der Meij (2015

slides, talking head Kizilcec et al. (2015)talking-head, robot, animated

human, animated robotLi et al. (2016)

speaker-centric, board-centric Santos-Espino et al. (2016)

Table 1: Previous research has orga-nized instructional video with overlap-ping or ambiguous tags and categories,but there is no unifying framework,which might be confusing in assessingcontribution in further research

the production of a new instructional video. Moreover, a future-prooftaxonomy should also hold the predictive attribute, which facilitatesthe definition of new production styles that do not yet exist.

In the next section, we examine contemporary instructional videostyles, as found on online learning systems and educational videorepositories, in order to identify nuances across the two dimensionsof the proposed classification scheme: human embodiment and in-structional media.

Taxonomy of instructional video styles

Figure 2: The first quadrant includesstyles that represent physical em-bodiment and physical boards: MITOpenCourseware, iTunesU

The availability of instructional video has been increasing since theearly 2000âAZs, when broadband access from home became moreaffordable for more people. Initially, video lectures appeared on ed-ucational video repositories, such as YouTube and iTunes University.Next, video lectures spread quickly to specialized educational orga-


nizations, such as MIT Open Courseware, TEDed, Videolectures.net.Last, but not least, the instructional video format has become evenmore popular and refined within the Massive Open Online Courses(MOOCs), which have complemented video lectures with other pop-ular e-learning elements, such as syllabus, e-books, assignments,discussion forums, wikis, and peer-grading. Although MOOCs aremuch more than just video lectures, the MOOC platforms have put alot of effort in evolving the video lecture format. In this work, we fo-cused on educational videos found on major educational video repos-itories (e.g., YouTubeEdu, iTunesU, MIT Open Courseware, Vide-oLectures.net, TEDEd) and platforms that offer video-based learning,such as Coursera, Udacity, EdX, Khan Academy, FutureLearn, andIversity. Besides the classification of existing video lectures, the pro-posed taxonomy has put special emphasis on the granularity of themain factors (human-embodiment, instructional media) that definethe classification of each presentation style.

Figure 3: The fourth and most pop-ular quadrant includes styles thatrepresent varying degrees of physicalembodiment and strong emphasis ondigital instructional media: TED, KhanAcademy, Udacity, Coursera

We performed a breadth-first random sampling of the availableinstructional video styles, in order to classify them in a Table (Table1) according to two factors: human embodiment and instructionalmedia. We explored hundreds of instructional videos, as many asrequired before we could not find any significantly different ones.The starting point of our taxonomy is the work of Santos-Espino et al.(2016)16, which we extend by generalizing and by providing a more 16 José Miguel Santos-Espino, María Do-


nuanced spectrum of nominal values along the two dimensions. Inthe proposed taxonomy, there are two dimensions that determine thepresentation style: 1) human embodiment, 2) instructional media. Foreach one of the two dimensions there are multiple nominal valuesthat range from the digital (or artificial) to the physical. Firstly, weexamined the main presentation styles in order to assign nominalvalues to the main attributes, and next, we assigned each style on thecartesian table with the respective index symbol, in order to make thescatter-plot visualization more legible.


The proposed classification is qualitative and aims to reveal theexisting presentation styles. It does not provide any information withthe regard to popularity, or with regard to learning effectiveness, orsuitability to a particular pedagogy, which are left to further work.In particular, the classification factors are nominal rather that quan-titative, so the classification is not meant to be absolute about theparticular nominal values. It is meant to be exact about clearly defin-ing presentation styles before measuring them quantitatively. Bothclassification factors (human-embodiment, instructional media) havethe same limits, which are fully digital and fully physical. Thus, thehuman-embodiment factor has been organized with nominal valuesthe reflect a gamut of human-presence. Similarly, the instructionalmedia factor has been organized with nominal values that reflect agamut of different instructional media. Then, the mapping of existinginstructional video styles on a nominal scatter plot is a straightfor-ward visualization from the classification table, according to theindex keys in the first column.

Figure 4: The third quadrant includesstyles that represent digital embodi-ment and digital boards

Sources of video screenshots: TED,iTunesU, Khan Academy, Udacity,Coursera, Coursera, Coursera, MITOpenCourseware, MIT OpenCourse-Ware, Coursera, YouTube, [Li et al.,2016]

In summary, video lectures can be organized in two dimensions:human embodiment and instructional media, which have severalnominal values from digital to physical. Although the proposed tax-onomy of presentation styles is just a snapshot of the current situa-tion, the focus of the taxonomy is on the classification factors (humanembodiment, instructional media) and the particular attributes (e.g.,hand, face, slides, etc.), rather than the details of the production style.Therefore, the discussion that follows is based on those factors. Inparticular, the level of the human embodiment varies widely betweenvideo lectures from wide shots that include the audience heads toscreen capturing of the tip of the pen. The type of instructional mediais another classification factor that varies from slides and animations,to objects manipulated by the instructor. The proposed taxonomyshould be useful in understanding the landscape of available op-tions when planning to create a familiar instructional video, or whendesigning a novel presentation style.

Discussion

In comparison to previous related work, the proposed taxonomy:1) describes current and potential new styles, 2) provides a granu-lar spectrum of typologies, and 3) is complemented with a visualrepresentation of video production styles. Most notably, Santos-Espino et al. (2016)17 have accurately identified the two main con- 17 José Miguel Santos-Espino, María Do-


cepts (speaker-centric, board-centric), but they have only presentedthem as opposing conditions on one dimension. For example, theycharacterized existing instructional videos as speaker-centric, if the


instructor,audienceanimation�

instructorblack-board,

pentipblackboard◇

hand black-board ▷

talking-headslides, pentip ▽

talking-headslides ⊡

talking-headpentip ⭐

talking-head in-strument⊠

people in-struments◁

people nomedia ⊚

instructorcoding �

robotslides △

animatedhumanslides ⊗

Table 2: Taxonomy of instructionalvideo styles


speaker is more important than the instructional media. In our view,the speakers and boards are not in a competition for the attention ofthe learner. Thus, the proposed taxonomy visually represents speak-ers and boards as two complementary (orthogonal) dimensions and,at the same time, it defines a wide continuum of presentation styles.Indeed, the survey of existing styles in research and practice has re-vealed that there is a more fine-grained use of human embodimentand instructional media. For example, speakers might be substi-tuted with digital or artificial agents (animated characters, robots)and boards need not always be digital, but might be physical, too.Finally, the most important contribution of the suggested taxonomyis a comprehensive visual representation of existing and potentialnew presentation styles. In this way, the taxonomy of video lecturesis more than a map of the current situation; it becomes a tool fornavigating towards novel video lecture styles.

Figure 5: visual depiction (left) of avideo-based course structure revealsthat video is just one component thatneeds to work with other equallyimportant components (e.g., problemsets, hypertext), while the actual mix ofthese elements might differ significantlyamong courses (right)

The visual representation of the instructional video taxonomyfacilitates a systematic comparison between existing styles, as wellas the design of new ones. It demonstrates that we are at an earlyphase in the development of instructional video styles, because mostefforts just replicate the traditional classroom. Hopefully, there is avast unexplored space that regards the employment of artificial rep-resentations for humans, such as robots and animated characters. Inparticular, it is worth exploring the combination of artificial charac-ters with digital media, which might be facilitated by video-gamedevelopment toolkits. In this way, digital characters might appear tomanipulate digital instructional media in the third quadrant. More-over, there are opportunities in the employment of augmented realitytechnologies, which bridge physical instructional media with artificialcharacters. For example, there are TV-studio technologies that enablethe tracking of physical objects and enable their interaction with ar-tificial entities (objects or characters). In this way, digital charactersmight appear to manipulate physical objects in the 4th quadrant.

A taxonomy of instructional video would not be complete unlesswe regarded the broader instructional framework. There are two


main approaches to instructional video in education, which definea spectrum of options within them. Video lectures have been usedas a substitute of classroom teaching in distance education, or as acomplementary instructional tool in flipped-classrooms. For example,a video lecture prepared for distance education of adults assumesthat the learner is going to have a minimal contact with the instruc-tor and his peers. On the other hand, a video lecture prepared forK12 students, who attend school, assumes that the learner is goingto employ the lecture as an instructional medium for home study.Therefore, the presentation style and the instructional design ofvideo lectures might be influenced by the target group and the in-structional framework. Moreover, according to Anderson and Dron(2010)18 educational pedagogy could be classified in three genera- 18 Terry Anderson and Jon Dron. Three

generations of distance educationpedagogy. The International Reviewof Research in Open and DistributedLearning, 12(3):80–97, 2011

tions: cognitive-behaviorist, social constructivist, and connectivist.The contemporary instructional video seems to be at the former stagewith videos created by teachers and distributed to learners. In thefuture, video might be increasingly employed for peer-to-peer com-munication, or remixed and shared between learners and teachers.Therefore, further research could provide a taxonomy of video stylesaccording to the pedagogical approach.

We did not consider neither the complete instructional design, northe interaction design aspect of video lectures, but we focused on thevisual organization of the video content. The instructional video isa major pillar in pedagogical design, but it is usually complementedwith additional types of material (Seaton 2016)19, so the selection of a 19 Daniel Seaton. Exploring course

structure at harvardx, 2016. URLhttps://goo.gl/i8dEfS

presentation style should take a holistic view that considers the typeof the course and the needs of the learners. For example, the Udacityvideo lectures are much more than video recordings of a teacher andinstructional media, because they are highly structured in terms oflearning design and provide the respective user interface that facili-tates navigation through video and quiz content. The same practiceis also followed by Coursera, but, the video segmentation seems tobe more sparse than the one employed by the Udacity system. Inaddition to a video, there are more instructional materials, such asproblem sets, hypertext pages, as well as discussion boards. Thus,further research should evaluate the effectiveness of presentationstyles, in the context of particular pedagogical frameworks.

Conclusion

In summary, there are some interesting patterns across the evolutionand the production style of video lectures. First, video lectures havestarted as simple recordings of hour-long lectures and have graduallyevolved into comprehensive one-minute clips of highly legible and

https://goo.gl/i8dEfS


elaborate tablet writing. In particular, there has been an increasinguse of technology to manipulate the video recording of the teacherand of the instructional media. Most notably, there is wide variabilityof human embodiment in the final video, from groups of people,to robots, and digital avatars. In this way, human embodiment andinstructional media have been two complementary dimensions in theproposed taxonomy that defines a highly granular two-dimensionalspace of existing and potential new presentation styles. Media are mere vehicles that deliver

instruction but do not influence studentachievement any more than the truck thatdelivers our groceries causes changes in ournutrition, Clark (1983)

Richard E Clark. Reconsideringresearch on learning from media.Review of educational research, 53(4):445–459, 1983

Besides the theoretical contribution (disambiguation of terms,granular two-dimensional taxonomy), the proposed taxonomy mightfacilitate the selection of a video lecture style, or it might encouragethe production of novel ones. For example, a teacher might discoverthat the screencasting of slides might be enhanced with a drawingboard, or a talking head video-feed, which add some extra personal-ity to the final composite video lecture. Moreover, a more ambitiouseducator with access to studio equipment and with video productionskills might discover that there is a vast unexplored space at the 3rdand especially in the 4th quadrant of the taxonomy. For example, apossible presentation style at the 4th quadrant might combine digitalavatars that operate on physical instrumentation, which is a commonspecial effect in movies. Therefore, in addition to some serious skillsand equipment, we also need strong imagination, creativity, and ex-perimentation in order to explore new presentation styles. Althoughthe proposed taxonomy might be a necessary condition, it is certainlynot a sufficient one for preparing successful video lecture, becausean effective instructional video is a very complicated topic that alsodepends on pedagogy and production tools.

We expect that the experimentation with presentation styles willcontinue along a path similar to the experimentation of other lin-ear audiovisual content, such as TV and radio. Indeed, the first TVshows were just radio shows with a static image (Bolter and Grusin2000)20, but eventually, the TV format has evolved towards many 20 J David Bolter, Richard Grusin,

and Richard A Grusin. Remediation:Understanding new media. mit Press,2000

novel directions. Similarly, we expect that instructional video is goingto evolve away from simple classroom recording towards new pre-sentation styles. In the race towards novel presentation styles, a fewcontent providers might be able to afford expensive and elaborateproduction styles, which might result in high-quality audio-visualappeal and might raise the bar of what is expected by learners. Al-though the tools of video production have been democratized withinexpensive high-definition cameras and accessible post-processingat the home computer, there is still a big difference between an ex-pensive Hollywood-studio movie and a low-budget independentproduction. At the same time, we expect that the mainstream in-structional video might not be to the liking of everyone. Just like in


movies, although production quality is important, there is always anaudience for low-budget productions, which have to focus on otheraspects, such as originality, narrative, and creative presentation style.

References

Terry Anderson and Jon Dron. Three generations of distance edu-cation pedagogy. The International Review of Research in Open andDistributed Learning, 12(3):80–97, 2011.

J David Bolter, Richard Grusin, and Richard A Grusin. Remediation:Understanding new media. mit Press, 2000.

Chih-Ming Chen and Chung-Hsin Wu. Effects of different videolecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, andlearning performance. Computers & Education, 80:108–121, 2015.

Richard E Clark. Reconsidering research on learning from media.Review of educational research, 53(4):445–459, 1983.

Andrew Cross, Mydhili Bayyapunedi, Edward Cutrell, Anant Agar-wal, and William Thies. Typerighting: combining the benefits ofhandwriting and typeface in online educational videos. In Pro-ceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in ComputingSystems, pages 793–796. ACM, 2013.

Philip J Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin. How video productionaffects student engagement: An empirical study of mooc videos. InProceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference,pages 41–50. ACM, 2014.

Christina Ilioudi, Michail N Giannakos, and Konstantinos Chori-anopoulos. Investigating differences among the commonly usedvideo lecture styles. 2013.

René F Kizilcec, Jeremy N Bailenson, and Charles J Gomez. TheinstructorâAZs face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3):724,2015.

Jamy Li, René Kizilcec, Jeremy Bailenson, and Wendy Ju. Socialrobots and virtual agents as lecturers for video instruction. Com-puters in Human Behavior, 55:1222–1230, 2016.

Alendra Lyons, Stephen Reysen, and Lindsey Pierce. Video lectureformat, student technological efficacy, and social presence in onlinecourses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1):181–186, 2012.


Richard E Mayer and C Scott DaPra. An embodiment effect incomputer-based learning with animated pedagogical agents. Jour-nal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18(3):239, 2012.

José Miguel Santos-Espino, María Dolores Afonso-Suárez, andCayetano Guerra-Artal. Speakers and boards: A survey of in-structional video styles in moocs. Technical Communication, 63(2):101–115, 2016.

Daniel Seaton. Exploring course structure at harvardx, 2016. URLhttps://goo.gl/i8dEfS.

William Sugar, Abbie Brown, and Kenneth Luterbach. Examiningthe anatomy of a screencast: Uncovering common elements andinstructional strategies. The International Review of Research in Openand Distributed Learning, 11(3):1–20, 2010.

Jason Swarts. New modes of help: Best practices for instructionalvideo. Technical Communication, 59(3):195–206, 2012.

Petra ten Hove and Hans van der Meij. Like it or not. what char-acterizes youtube’s more popular instructional videos? Technicalcommunication, 62(1):48–62, 2015.

Clive Thompson. How khan academy is changing the rules of educa-tion, Jul 2011. URL http://www.wired.com/2011/07/ff_khan/.

https://goo.gl/i8dEfS


a taxonomy of video lecture styles - arxiv · 2020. 1. 1. · a taxonomy of video lecture styles...

Documents