Does Video Aid Learning?

Video is pervasive, and becoming more so in the classroom. Publishers provide DVDs with textbooks, video cases from Stanford and Harvard are proliferating, and short clips from CNN and WSJ.com are showing up in greater numbers in college classrooms. My experience is that short, relevant, and timely videos can be very effective in illustrating course concepts or in generating classroom exchanges. A quick scan of the literature suggests, however, that the value of video or other multimedia content as a pedagogical tool may be overstated.

I recently stumbled upon a doctoral dissertation entitled “The Effectiveness of Multimedia Technology Aids in Transferring Business Knowledge” by Pengtao Li. Li posed several hypotheses, the much distilled gist of which was that increasing multimedia content would enhance learning, provided there was cognitive fit. (For his study, Li defined no multimedia, low multimedia, and high multimedia content as text, text plus graph, and animation, respectively). If I understand Li’s findings, the learning of quantitative business concepts is enhanced with the use of multimedia aids, but the learning of general business concepts is not (and may even be impeded).

Since I teach a number of courses with an emphasis on general as opposed to quantitative business concepts, I find this intriguing. On the face of it, and intuitively, I find the part that suggests that general business concepts would not benefit from a multimedia delivery hard to credit. I try to include visual and audio content along with basic course concepts in order to help students internalize these general business concepts. Anecdotally, this seems to work. Video and visual content tends to generate good classroom discussion, and is often cited in subsequent exams. On the other hand, Li’s definition of multimedia may be somewhat constrained; I do not believe he studied the effect of video, for example, on learning outcomes.

Another study assessing the association between the use of multimedia materials such as video clips with learning outcomes among medical students, however, suggests that watching videos has a positive association with learning outcomes. [Do medical students watch video clips in eLearning and do these facilitate learning? Medical teacher. Volume: 29, Issue 5. 2007]. This study found that students who watched video clips were more collaborative (e.g., made greater use of discussion boards), and achieved higher course grades. Interestingly, women were far more likely to both view more video clips and to rate the value of the video clips higher than men.

Apparently there are numerous studies arguing both for and against the assertion that multimedia content enhances learning outcomes.

I’d like to see further investigation in this area, especially given the stated preferences of neomillenials and other younger students for simulations, games, interactivity, and video in the classroom. I’m also interested in how faculty use multimedia, especially video clips, in their classes.

(A future post will post a link to a short survey on video use in the classroom. If enough folks respond, I’ll post results.)

Social Networks In The Classroom?

A librarian friend recently suggested that if I wanted to get the attention of undergraduates, I should put a widget on Facebook. We were discussing an information content application, but I got to thinking about the use of social networking in the class itself to engage students in course content. Yes, course management software has long incorporated social network-type components such as discussion groups and similar features of online, distance, and blended learning courses. But the use of Web 2.0 services with, say, a level of sophistication beyond faculty blogs, hasn’t exactly reached critical mass in most business school classrooms.

And yet, there appears to be a whole literature out there on this topic. Bryan Alexander’s “Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning?” (EDUCAUSE Review, Mar-Apr 2006), discusses the challenges of even defining Web 2.0, charts the evolution of key technologies, and then profiles a number of services and their potential application to classroom learning. Social bookmarking, social writing platforms, RSS feeds, tools for aggregating metadata or sharing microcontent…the whole category of social software would appear to promise a new level of student engagement. And Alexander makes more than a credible argument that tools like Waypath’s topic stream and others should enhance collaboration within and between classes or even campuses.

But while students may be ready for this new pedagogy, faculty seem to be slow to embrace Web 2.0 services. Alexander notes that many of these services were initiated outside of academia and perhaps are targeting a different audience, which may explain why students, with their less narrow and more mainstream content interests, tend to be more receptive.

Derek Baird and Mercedes Fisher go a step further, arguing that “neomillennial students expect interactive, engaging content and course material that motivates them to learn through challenging pedagogy (“Neomillennial User Experience Design Strategies: Utilizing Social Networking Media to Support ‘Always On’ Learning Styles.” Journal of Educational Technology Systems, v34 n1, 2005-2006).

The authors argue for new content delivery options more compatible with the learning styles and expectations of these neomillennial students. They also call for teachers to “be among the early adopters of new social networking technologies.” All well and good, but my librarian more or less confirms that, far from being early adopters, most faculty are early majority at best, and more likely laggards when it comes to embracing these new services (faculty in this post refers to business faculty, who may or may not lag the general faculty population in their embrace of Web 2.0 services).

The prognosis worsens: Baird and Fisher cite several studies on neomillennial student behaviors and characteristics in support of their argument for a new digital pedagogy. One study by the Nielson Norman Group puts the issue in stark relief: ‘“When teenagers surf the Web, they often have different goals than adults do. But some interesting features draw them in: big type, lots of pictures and a reasonable dose of respect.’” Big type? Lots of pictures? This would suggest that faculty had better come up to speed on Web 2.0 services sooner rather than later.

Still, if the desired end result is more student engagement, maybe we need less technology. The “Facebook in the Flesh” NYU freshman orientation seminar described by Michael Schulman in a recent New Yorker Talk of the Town column (Social Studies, New Yorker, September 17, 2007) describes otherwise bright incoming freshmen who, perhaps owing to too much time spent on social networking sites, appear somewhat interpersonally challenged as they learn how to “build social networks in person.”

So, on the one hand we’ve got an increasing number of companies delivering Web 2.0 services, and a student demographic conversant with social technology platforms, and who have expressed a preference for a new type of pedagogy; and on the other, a group of faculty best characterized as laggards when it comes to actually implementing these much vaunted social technologies. What if anything will speed the penetration of Web 2.0 services in the classroom? Like most innovations, the rate of diffusion is to a large extent a function of the degree to which user/faculty behavior has to change. Right now the hurdle seems fairly high.