Video Lectures: An Analysis of Their Useful Life Span and Sustainable Production

José Miguel Santos Espino; Cayetano Guerra Artal; Sara María González Betancor

doi:10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5553

Authors

José Miguel Santos Espino Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5364-1317
Cayetano Guerra Artal Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1381-2262
Sara María González Betancor University of Las Palmas de Gran Canaria https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2209-1922

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v22i3.5553

Keywords:

video lecture, sustainable education, higher education, useful life, cost-effectiveness

Abstract

The learning effectiveness of video lectures has been extensively studied by the scientific community, but research on their cost-effectiveness and sustainable production is still very scarce. To shed light on these aspects, this study has measured the useful life span and cost-effectiveness of a large catalog of video lectures produced for undergraduate courses at a Spanish university. A Kaplan–Meier survival analysis has been performed to identify factors linked to video longevity. The analysis accounted for variables such as the video production style (screencast, slideshow, chalk and talk, talking head, and on-location film) and others such as the instructional purpose and field of knowledge. The teachers involved in video production and integration have been surveyed to discover causes of video obsolescence. In addition, using life span and production cost data, the cost-effectiveness of each production style over time was estimated. The results suggest that production style affects video longevity, and in particular, dynamic visuals are more related to longer life spans compared with static contents. Screencast stands out as the most cost-effective production style, having the best ratio of life span to production effort. Some practical suggestions are provided for producing video lectures with higher longevity expectations.

References

Alharthi, A. D., Spichkova, M., & Hamilton, M. (2019). Sustainability requirements for eLearning systems: A systematic literature review and analysis. Requirements Engineering, 24(4), 523–543. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00766-018-0299-9

Brosig, B., Kupfer, J., Niemeier, V., & Gieler, U. (2001). The “Dorian Gray syndrome”: Psychodynamic need for hair growth restores and other “fountains of youth.” International Journal of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 39(7), 279–283. https://doi.org/10.5414/cpp39279

Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning (4th ed.). Wiley.

Crook, C., & Schofield, L. (2017). The video lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 56–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iheduc.2017.05.003

Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). Effects of observing the instructor draw diagrams on learning from multimedia messages. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(4), 528–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000065

Furini, M., Galli, G., & Martini, M. C. (2020). An online education system to produce and distribute video lectures. Mobile Networks and Applications, 25, 969–976. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-019-01236-4

Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement : An empirical study of MOOC videos. In M. Sahami & A. Fox (Chairs), L@S 2014—Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Learning at Scale (pp. 41–50). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239

Han, S., & Wong, R. (2009). Incorporating audio-visual materials in university teaching: Results of a faculty survey and corresponding actions of the library. New Review of Academic Librarianship, 15(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/13614530903106620

Henrich, A., & Sieber, S. (2009). Blended learning and pure e-learning concepts for information retrieval: Experiences and future directions. Information Retrieval, 12(2), 117–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10791-008-9079-3

Hollands, F. M., & Tirthali, D. (2014). Resource requirements and costs of developing and delivering MOOCs. The International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 15(5), 113–133. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i5.1901

Houston, C. (2000). Video usage and active learning strategies among community college faculty members. Community College Journal of Research and Practice, 24(5), 341–357. https://doi.org/10.1080/106689200263953

Ibrahim, M., Antonenko, P. D., Greenwood, C. M., & Wheeler, D. (2012). Effects of segmenting, signalling, and weeding on learning from educational video. Learning, Media and Technology, 37(3), 220–235. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2011.585993

Ilioudi, C., Chorianopoulos, K., & Giannakos, M. N. (2013, 8–10 November). Comparing the camera shot styles of video lectures: Close-up versus broad framing of whiteboard and lecturer [Paper presentation]. 7th International Conference in Open and Distance Learning, Athens, Greece.

Kaplan, E. L., & Meier, P. (1958). Nonparametric estimation from incomplete observations. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 53(282), 457–481. https://doi.org/10.2307/2281868

Kay, R. H. (2012). Exploring the use of video podcasts in education: A comprehensive review of the literature. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(3), 820–831. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.01.011

Liber, O. (2005). Learning objects: Conditions for viability. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 21(5), 366–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2005.00143.x

Mardis, M. A. (2009). Learning, media and technology viewing Michigan’s digital future: Results of a survey of educators’ use of digital video in the USA. Learning, Media and Technology, 34(3), 243–257. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439880903141539

Meinert, E., Alturkistani, A., Foley, K. A., Brindley, D., & Car, J. (2019). Examining cost measurements in production and delivery of three case studies using e-learning for applied health sciences: Cross-case synthesis. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(6), e13574. https://doi.org/10.2196/13574

Nissenson, P. M., & Shih, A. C. (2015). MOOC on a budget: Development and implementation of a low-cost MOOC at a state university. In ASEE Annual Conference and Exposition, Conference Proceedings (122nd ASEE) (pp. 26.1168.1–26.1168.25). American Society for Engineering Education. https://doi.org/10.18260/p.24505

Norman, M. K. (2017). Twelve tips for reducing production time and increasing long-term usability of instructional video. Medical Teacher, 39(8), 808–812. https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2017.1322190

Poquet, O., Lim, L., Mirriahi, N., & Dawson, S. (2018). Video and learning: A systematic review (2007–2017). In A. Pardo et al. (Chairs), LAK ’18: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (pp. 151–160). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/3170358.3170376

Renaud, J., Britton, S., Wang, D., & Ogihara, M. (2015). Mining library and university data to understand library use patterns. The Electronic Library, 33(3), 355–372. https://doi.org/10.1108/EL-07-2013-0136

Santos Espino, J. M., Afonso Suárez, M. D., & González Henríquez, J. J. (2020). Video for teaching: Classroom use, instructor self-production and teachers’ preferences in presentation format. Technology, Pedagogy and Education, 29(2), 147–162. https://doi.org/10.1080/1475939X.2020.1726805

Spanjers, I. A. E., Wouters, P., van Gog, T., & van Merriënboer, J. J. G. (2011). An expertise reversal effect of segmentation in learning from animated worked-out examples. Computers in Human Behavior, 27(1), 46–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.05.011

StataCorp. (2017). Stata statistical software: Release 15 [Computer software]. StataCorp LLC. https://www.stata.com/

Stepanyan, K., Littlejohn, A., & Margaryan, A. (2013). Sustainable e-learning: Toward a coherent body of knowledge. Journal of Educational Technology & Society, 16(2), 91–102. http://oro.open.ac.uk/42265/

Türkay, S. (2016). The effects of whiteboard animations on retention and subjective experiences when learning advanced physics topics. Computers and Education, 98, 102–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.03.004

Turro, C., Cañero, A., & Busquets, J. (2010). Video learning objects creation with Polimedia. In Proceedings—2010 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia, ISM 2010 (pp. 371–376). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISM.2010.69

van der Meij, H., & van der Meij, J. (2013). Eight guidelines for the design of instructional videos for software training. Technical Communication, 60(3), 205–228. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/stc/tc/2013/00000060/00000003/art00004

Wilson, K. E., Martinez, M., Mills, C., D’Mello, S., Smilek, D., & Risko, E. F. (2018). Instructor presence effect: Liking does not always lead to learning. Computers and Education, 122, 205–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2018.03.011

Winslett, G. (2014). What counts as educational video? Working toward best practice alignment between video production approaches and outcomes. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 30(5). https://doi.org/10.14742/ajet.458

Young, D. (2008, December 1–4). E-learning lifecycle costs : Up-front decisions for managers and ISDs [Paper presentation]. Interservice/Industry Training, Simulation, and Education Conference (I/ITSEC) 2008, Orlando, Florida.