Online instructional videos are becoming increasingly common within education. This study adopts a quasi-experimental 2 × 2 crossover design (control and experimental groups) to evaluate the efficacy of instructional videos to teach practical rehabilitation skills. The students performed practical sessions in class and were formatively assessed by their lecturers. The results demonstrate that the group effect was moderate with an effect size of 0.68, CI [0.04, 1.31]; the magnitude-based inferences indicate the probabilities the video was beneficial or trivial or harmful were 93.9% or 5.4% or 0.6%. The results of the study demonstrate that the instructional videos had a small to moderate beneficial effect on all assessed criteria.
AlonsoF.LopezG.ManriqueD.VinesJ. M. (2008) Learning objects, learning objectives and learning design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International45(4): 389–400. doi:10.1080/14703290802377265.
2.
BatterhamA. M.HopkinsW. G. (2006) Making meaningful inferences about magnitudes. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance1(1): 50–57.
3.
BenedictL.PenceH. E. (2012) Teaching Chemistry using student-created videos and photo blogs accessed with smartphones and two-dimensional barcodes. Journal of Chemical Education89(4): 492–496. doi:10.1021/ed2005399.
4.
CooperD.HigginsS. (2014) The effectiveness of online instructional videos in the acquisition and demonstration of cognitive, affective and psychomotor rehabilitation skills. British Journal of Educational Technology46(4): 768–779. doi:10.1111/bjet.12166.
5.
DeubelP. (2003) An investigation of behaviorist and cognitive approaches to instructional multimedia design. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia12(1): 63–90.
HillG. (1982) Group versus individual performance: Are N+ 1 heads better than one?Psychological Bulletin91(3): 517–539.
8.
HopkinsW. G. (2008) Estimating sample size for magnitude-based inferences. Health (San Francisco). 2006, 63–70.
9.
KalaS.IsaramalaiS.-A.PohthongA. (2010) Electronic learning and constructivism: A model for nursing education. Nurse Education Today30(1): 61–66. doi:10.1016/j.nedt.2009.06.002.
10.
KimB.ReevesT. C. (2007) Reframing research on learning with technology: In search of the meaning of cognitive tools. Instructional Science35(3): 207–256. doi:10.1007/s11251-006-9005-2.
11.
KruseN. B.VeblenK. K. (2012) Music teaching and learning online: Considering YouTube instructional videos. Journal of Music, Technology and Education5(1): 77–87. doi:10.1386/jmte.5.1.77_1.
12.
LaughlinP. R.HatchE. C.SilverJ. S.BohL. (2006) Groups perform better than the best individuals on letters-to-numbers problems: Effects of group size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology90(4): 644–651. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.4.644.
13.
LouY.AbramiP. C.d’ApolloniaS. (2001) Small group and individual learning with technology: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research71(3): 449–521. doi:10.3102/00346543071003449.
14.
MayerR. E. (2002) Cognitive theory and the design of multimedia instruction: An example of the two-way street between cognition and instruction. New Directions for Teaching and Learning2002(89): 55–71. doi:10.1002/tl.47.
15.
MayerR. E. (2008) Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. The American Psychologist63(8): 760–769. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760.
16.
Mayer, R. E. (2014). Chapter 3. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
17.
MayerR. E.MorenoR.BoireM.VaggeS. (1999) Maximizing constructivist learning from multimedia communications by minimizing cognitive load. Journal of Educational Psychology91(4): 638–643. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.638.
18.
Van Der MeijH.Van Der MeijJ. (2013) Eight guidelines for the design of instructional videos for software training. Technical Communication60(3): 205–228.
19.
RovaiA. P.WightingM. J.BakerJ. D.GroomsL. D. (2009) Development of an instrument to measure perceived cognitive, affective, and psychomotor learning in traditional and virtual classroom higher education settings. The Internet and Higher Education12(1): 7–13. doi:10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.10.002.
20.
SamarasH.GiouvanakisT.BousiouD.TarabanisK. (2006) Towards a new generation of multimedia learning research. AACE Journal14(1): 3–30.
21.
SeilstadB. (2012) Using tailor-made YouTube videos as a preteaching strategy for English language learners in Morocco: Towards a hybrid language learning course. Teaching English with Technology12(4): 31–49.
22.
Smith, G. (1998). Return to fitness. In Tidswell, M. (Ed.), Orthopaedic physiotherapy (Vol. 270, pp. 255–270). New York, USA: Mosby.
23.
SwartsJ. (2012) New modes of help: Best practices for instructional video. Technical Communication59(3): 195–206.
24.
van der MeijH.van der MeijJ. (2014) A comparison of paper-based and video tutorials for software learning. Computers & Education78: 150–159. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.06.003.
25.
Van GogT.VerveerI.VerveerL. (2014) Learning from video modeling examples: Effects of seeing the human model’s face. Computers & Education72: 323–327. doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2013.12.004.
26.
Vogel-WalcuttJ. J.GebrimJ. B.BowersC.CarperT. M.NicholsonD. (2011) Cognitive load theory vs. constructivist approaches: Which best leads to efficient, deep learning?Journal of Computer Assisted Learning27(2): 133–145. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2010.00381.x.
27.
WellekS.BlettnerM. (2012) On the proper use of the crossover design in clinical trials: Part 18 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International109(15): 276–281.
