skip to main content
10.1145/2556325.2566239acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesl-at-sConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos

Published:04 March 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Videos are a widely-used kind of resource for online learning. This paper presents an empirical study of how video production decisions affect student engagement in online educational videos. To our knowledge, ours is the largest-scale study of video engagement to date, using data from 6.9 million video watching sessions across four courses on the edX MOOC platform. We measure engagement by how long students are watching each video, and whether they attempt to answer post-video assessment problems.

Our main findings are that shorter videos are much more engaging, that informal talking-head videos are more engaging, that Khan-style tablet drawings are more engaging, that even high-quality pre-recorded classroom lectures might not make for engaging online videos, and that students engage differently with lecture and tutorial videos.

Based upon these quantitative findings and qualitative insights from interviews with edX staff, we developed a set of recommendations to help instructors and video producers take better advantage of the online video format. Finally, to enable researchers to reproduce and build upon our findings, we have made our anonymized video watching data set and analysis scripts public. To our knowledge, ours is one of the first public data sets on MOOC resource usage.

References

  1. Khan Academy YouTube Channel. http://www.youtube.com/user/khanacademy/about.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Breslow, L., Pritchard, D. E., DeBoer, J., Stump, G. S., Ho, A. D., and Seaton, D. T. Studying learning in the worldwide classroom: Research into edX's first MOOC. Research and Practice in Assessment 8 (Summer 2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Coetzee, D., Fox, A., Hearst, M. A., and Hartmann, B. Should Your MOOC Forum Use a Reputation System? CSCW'14, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2014). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cross, A., Bayyapunedi, M., Cutrell, E., Agarwal, A., and Thies, W. TypeRighting: Combining the Benefits of Handwriting and Typeface in Online Educational Videos. CHI'13, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2013). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Google. How Visits are calculated in Analytics. https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/2731565?hl=en.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Google. YouTube Analytics. http://www.youtube.com/yt/playbook/yt-analytics.html#details.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Haber, J. xMOOC vs. cMOOC. http://degreeoffreedom.org/xmooc-vs-cmooc/, 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Ilioudi, C., Giannakos, M. N., and Chorianopoulos, K. Investigating Differences among the Commonly Used Video Lecture Styles. In Proceedings of the Workshop on Analytics on Video-based Learning, WAVe'13 (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Kizilcec, R. F., Piech, C., and Schneider, E. Deconstructing disengagement: analyzing learner subpopulations in massive open online courses. In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge, LAK '13, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2013), 170--179. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Levasseur, D. G., and Sawyer, J. K. Pedagogy Meets PowerPoint: A Research Review of the Effects of Computer-Generated Slides in the Classroom. Review of Communication 6, 1 (2006), 101--123.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayer, R. E. Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Roam, D. The Back of the Napkin (Expanded Edition): Solving Problems and Selling Ideas with Pictures. Portfolio Hardcover, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Seaton, D. T., Bergner, Y., Chuang, I., Mitros, P., and Pritchard, D. E. Who does what in a massive open online course? Communications of the ACM (2013).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Wade, A., and Koutoumanou, E. Non-parametric tests: Confidence intervals for a single median. https://epilab.ich.ucl.ac.uk/coursematerial/statistics/non_parametric/confidence_interval.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Williams, J. R. Guidelines for the use of multimedia in instruction. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 42, 20 (1998), 1447--1451.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Wistia. Does length matter? It does for video! http://wistia.com/blog/does-length-matter-it-does-for-video, Sept. 2013.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. How video production affects student engagement: an empirical study of MOOC videos

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      L@S '14: Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning @ scale conference
      March 2014
      234 pages
      ISBN:9781450326698
      DOI:10.1145/2556325

      Copyright © 2014 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 March 2014

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      L@S '14 Paper Acceptance Rate14of38submissions,37%Overall Acceptance Rate117of440submissions,27%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader