Effects of Using Instructor Presence in Programming Video Lectures: An Eye Tracking Analysis

Abstract

One of the most widely used basic learning materials used for teaching programming in the field of open and distance education is video lectures. Increasing tendency towards the use of video lectures that include different multimedia elements in the field of open and distance education also raises questions about which types of video lectures should be designed, which multimedia elements are employed in video lectures to improve effective learning, and how different types of video lectures can have an impact on learning performance. In this context, the aim of this study is to test the effect of the instructor presence in programming video lectures on learning performance and to examine the eye movements of learning while learning with different types of video lectures. 35 prospective teachers studying at different undergraduate teacher education programs at a state university participated in the study. This experimental study was conducted following randomized pretest-posttest control group design. Two video lectures of different types were designed as experimental materials. The topic of the video lectures is Array in Python programming language. The data sources of the study are learning performances and eye movements measured while interacting with the video lectures simultaneously. The results of the study show that eye movements and learning performances of the participants differ significantly in terms of video lectures types including instructor-presence and instructor-absent. Learners who viewed the video lectures with instructor presence showed better learning performances. The results are discussed in terms of multimedia design and visual attention and highlight the importance of instructor presence in learning with programming video lectures.

Keywords

• Video lectures,Video design,Eye tracking,Multimedia learning,Teaching programming

Programlamaya İlişkin Ders Videolarında Öğretim Elemanı Görüntüsü Kullanımının Etkileri: Bir Göz İzleme Çalışması

Öz

Açık ve uzaktan eğitim alanında programlama öğretimi için kullanılan en temel öğrenme materyallerinden biri, ders videolarıdır. Farklı çoklu ortam öğelerini içeren ders videolarının açık ve uzaktan eğitim alanında kullanımına yönelik eğilimin artması; hangi video türünün tasarlanması gerektiğine, etkili öğrenmeyi geliştirmek için hangi çoklu ortam öğelerinin ders videolarında işe koşulmasına ve farklı türde ders videolarının öğrenme performansı üzerinde nasıl etki yaratabileceğine ilişkin yanıtlanması gereken sorularını da beraberinde getirmektedir. Bu bağlamda bu çalışmanın amacı, programlama öğretimine ilişkin ders videolarında öğretim elemanı görüntüsünün kullanımının öğrenme performansı üzerindeki etkisini belirlemek ve farklı türdeki ders videolarındaki göz hareketlerinin detaylı olarak incelemektir. Bir devlet üniversitesindeki farklı öğretmen eğitimi programlarında lisans düzeyinde öğrenim görmekte olan 35 öğretmen adayı, çalışmaya katılmıştır. Çalışma, ön test – son test kontrol gruplu seçkisiz deneysel desen takip edilerek yürütülmüştür. Deneysel materyal olarak farklı türde iki ders videosu tasarlanmıştır. Ders videoları, Python programlama dilinde “Diziler” konusuna ilişkindir. Çalışmanın veri kaynakları, katılımcıların ders videoları ile etkileşim halindeyken ölçülen göz hareketleri ve öğrenme performanslarıdır. Çalışma bulguları; öğretim elemanının görüntüsünün ders videolarında kullanıp kullanmama durumuna göre katılımcıların göz izleme metriklerinin ve öğrenme performanslarının anlamlı bir şekilde farklılaştığını, öğretim elemanının görüntüsünün kullanıldığı ders videolarını izleyen katılımcıların öğrenme performanslarının daha yüksek olduğunu göstermektedir. Elde edilen sonuçlar, çoklu ortam tasarımı ve görsel dikkat açısından tartışılmıştır. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları, programlama öğretimine ilişkin videolar ile öğrenmede öğretim elemanı varlığının önemini vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Ders videoları,Video tasarımı,Göz izleme,Çoklu Ortam Öğrenme,Programlama Öğretimi

Kaynakça

1. Akbulut, Y. (2010). Sosyal bilimlerde SPSS uygulamaları. İstanbul: İdeal Kültür Yayıncılık.
2. Bergmann, J., & Sams, A. (2013). Flip your students’ learning. Educational Leadership, 70(6), 16-20.
3. Bétrancourt, M., & Benetos, K. (2018). Why and when does instructional video facilitate learning? A commentary to the special issue "developments and trends in learning with instructional video". Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 471-475.
4. Bonk, C. J., Lee, M. M., Reeves, T. C., & Reynolds, T. H. (2015). MOOCS and open education around the world. New York, NY: Routledge.
5. Chen, C. M., & Wu, C. H. (2015). Effects of different video lecture types on sustained attention, emotion, cognitive load, and learning performance. Computers & Education, 80, 108-121.
6. Colliot, T., & Jamet, É. (2018). Understanding the effects of a teacher video on learning from a multimedia document: an eye-tracking study. Educational Technology Research and Development, 66, 1415–1433.
7. Crook, C., & Schofield, L. (2017). The video lecture. The Internet and Higher Education, 34, 56–64.
8. Cummins, S., Beresford, A. R., & Rice, A. (2016). Investigating engagement with in-video quiz questions in a programming course. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 9(1), 57-66.

9. Duchowski, A. T. (2007). Eye tracking methodology: Theory and practice. London: Springer-Verlag.
10. Fee, A., & Budde-Sung, A .E. K. (2014). Using video effectively in diverse classes: What students want? Journal of Management Education, 38, 843-874.
11. Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics (4th ed.). London SAGE Publications Ltd.
12. Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). What works and doesn’t work with instructional video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 465–470.
13. Fraenkel, J. R., Wallen, N. E., & Hyun, H. H. (2012). How to design and evaluate research in education (8th ed.). New York: McGram-Hill Companies.
14. Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrisochoides, N. (2015). Making sense of video analytics: Lessons learned from clickstream interactions, attitudes, and learning outcome in a video-assisted course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1), 260-283.
15. Hansch, A., Newman, C., Hillers, L., Schildhauer, T., McConachie, K., & Schmidt, P. (2015). Video and online learning: Critical reflections and findings from the field. HIIG Discussion Paper Series No. 2015-02. Alexander Von Humboldt İnternet ve Toplum Enstitüsü web sayfasından erişilmiştir: https://www.hiig.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/TopMOOC_Final-Paper.pdf
16. Henderson, J. M. (2017). Gaze Control as Prediction. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(1), 15–23.
17. Hong, J., Pi, Z., & Yang, J. (2016). Learning declarative and procedural knowledge via video lectures: cognitive load and learning effectiveness. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 55(1), 74–81.
18. Kizilcec, R. F., Bailenson, J. N., & Gomez, C. J. (2015). The instructor's face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 724.
19. Kizilcec, R. F., Papadopoulos, K., & Sritanyaratana, L. (2014). Showing face in video instruction: Effects on information retention, visual attention, and affect. In Proceedings of the annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2095–2102). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
20. Kleftodimos, A., & Evangelidis, G. (2016). Using open source technologies and open internet resources for building an interactive video based learning environment that supports learning analytics. Smart Learning Environments, 3(1), 1-23.
21. Kokoç M., & Altun A. (2014). Flipped öğrenmeye ilişkin sistematik bir alanyazın taraması: Kavramlar ve uygulamalar. Presented at the International Conference on New Trends in Educational Technology, GaziMagosa, KKTC.
22. Lage, M. J., Platt, G. J., & Treglia, M. (2000). Inverting the classroom: A gateway to creating an inclusive learning environment. The Journal of Economic Education, 31(1), 30-43.
23. Leadbeater, W., Shutterworth, T., Couperthwaite, J., & Nightingale, K. (2013). Evaluating the use and impact of lecture recording in undergraduates: Evidence for distinct approaches by different groups of students. Computers & Education, 61, 185–192.
24. Ljubojevic, M., Vaskovic, V., Stankovic, S., & Vaskovic, J. (2014). Using supplementary video in multimedia instruction as a teaching tool to increase efficiency of learning and quality of experience. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 275-291.
25. Lowenthal, P. R. (2009). The evolution and influence of social presence theory on online learning. In T. T. Kidd (Ed.), Online education and adult learning: New frontier for teaching practices. Hershey, PA: IGI Global.
26. Mayer, R. E., Sobko, K., & Mautone, P. D. (2003). Social cues in multimedia learning: Role of speaker's voice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 419-425.
27. Mayer, R.E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed). New York: Cambridge University Press.
28. Mayer, R. E. (2014). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
29. Nagy, J. T. (2018). Evaluation of online video usage and learning satisfaction: An extension of the technology acceptance model. International Review of Research in Open & Distance Learning, 19(1), 160–184.
30. Ozan, O., & Özarslan, Y. (2016). Video lecture watching behaviors of learners in online courses. Educational Media International, 53(1), 27-41.
31. Ozdinc, F., & Altun, A. (2014). Factors effecting information technology teacher trainees’ programming process. Elementary Education Online, 13(4), 1531-1541.
32. Pi, Z., & Hong, J. (2016). Learning process and learning outcomes of video podcasts including the instructor and PPT slides: a Chinese case. Innovations in Education and Teaching International, 53(2), 135–144.
33. Pi, Z., Hong, J., & Yang, J. (2017). Does instructor's image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 33, 347-354.
34. Pi, Z., Xu, K., Liu, C., & Yang, J. (2020). Instructor presence in video lectures: Eye gaze matters, but not body orientation. Computers & Education, 144, 103713.
35. Stull, A. T., Fiorella, L., & Mayer, R. E. (2018). An eye-tracking analysis of instructor presence in video lectures. Computers in Human Behavior, 88, 263–272.
36. Taplin, R. H., Kerr, R., & Brown, A. M. (2014). Opportunity costs associated with the provision of student services: A case study of web-based lecture technology. Higher Education, 68, 15–28.
37. Traphagan, T., Kucsera, J. V, & Kishi, K. (2010). Impact of class lecture webcasting on attendance and learning. Educational Technology Research and Development, 58(1), 19–37.
38. Wang, F., Li, W., Mayer, R. E., & Liu, H. (2018). Animated pedagogical agents as aids in multimedia learning: Effects on eye-fixations during learning and learning outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(2), 250–268.
39. Wang, J., Antonenko, P. D., & Dawson, K. M. (2020). Does visual attention to the instructor in online video affect learning and learner perceptions? An eye-tracking analysis. Computers & Education, 146, 103779.
40. 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 & Education, 122, 205-220.
41. Vajoczki, S., Watt, S., Marquis, N., & Holshausen, K. (2010). Podcasts: Are they an effective tool to enhance student learning? A case study from McMasters University, Hamilton Canada. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 19, 349–352.