Video usage in educational contexts is on the rise. We examined 3 alternative theories about cognitive mechanisms of learning and their implications for instructional design when video is employed to enhance text-based learning. Hypothesis-testing procedures followed a falsificationist approach, grounded in philosophy of science literature. Undergraduate students acquired learning-science concepts through web-based activities that involved studying reading material. Participants contrasted video cases before reading in one experimental condition, and after reading in another. Participants in a control condition read the same texts but saw no video cases. Recall results after a 2-day delay favored the instructional design in which video cases were contrasted after reading a text, consistent with a schema-elaboration hypothesis.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BartlettF. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology.Cambridge, England: The University Press.
2.
BeitzelB. D. (2004). Designing contrasting video case activities to facilitate learning of complex subject matter (Doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison, 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International, 65, 2893A.
3.
BeitzelB. D., & SerlinR. C. (2009). Withering criticism: Or, how to humbly conclude a theory is wrong. Manuscript submitted for publication.
4.
BransfordJ. D.BrownA. L., & CockingR. R. (Eds.). (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school.Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
5.
BransfordJ. D., & JohnsonM. K. (1972). Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 717–726.
6.
DerryS. J. (1996). Cognitive schema theory in the constructivist debate. Educational Psychologist, 31, 163–174.
7.
DerryS. J. (Ed.). (2007). Guidelines for video research in education.Chicago: Data Research and Development Center.
8.
DerryS. J.Hmelo-SilverC. E.FeltovichJ.NagarajanA.ChernobilskyE., & HalfpapB. (2005). Making a mesh of it: A STELLAR approach to teacher professional development. Paper presented at the Proceedings of Computer Support for Collaborative Learning (CSCL) 2005, Mahwah, NJ.
9.
DerryS. J.Hmelo-SilverC. E.NagarajanA.ChernobilskyE., & BeitzelB. D. (2006). Cognitive transfer revisited: Can we exploit new media to solve old problems on a large scale?Journal of Educational Computing Research, 35, 145–162.
10.
diSibioM. (1982). Memory for connected discourse: A constructivist view. Review of Educational Research, 52, 149–174.
11.
GlenbergA. M. (1997). What memory is for. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 20, 1–55.
12.
GlenbergA. M.BrownM., & LevinJ. R. (2007). Enhancing comprehension in small reading groups using a manipulation strategy. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 389–399.
13.
GlenbergA. M.GutierrezT.LevinJ. R.JapuntichS., & KaschakM. P. (2004). Activity and imagined activity can enhance young children's reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 424–436.
14.
GlenbergA. M., & RobertsonD. A. (1999). Indexical understanding of instructions. Discourse Processes, 28, 1–26.
15.
GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB., & DerryS. J. (Eds.). (2007). Video research in the learning sciences.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
16.
HammerD., & van ZeeE. (2006). Seeing the science in children's thinking: Case studies of student inquiry in physical science.Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
17.
KrasnyK. A.SadoskiM., & PaivioA. (2007). Unwarranted return: A response to McVee, Dunsmore, and Gavelek's (2005) “Schema Theory Revisited”. Review of Educational Research, 77, 239–244.
18.
LampertM., & BallD. L. (1998). Teaching, multimedia, and mathematics: Investigations of real practice.New York: Teachers College Press.
19.
LevinJ. R.SerlinR. C., & SeamanM. A. (1994). A controlled, powerful multiple-comparison strategy for several situations. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 153–159.
20.
LoftusE. F. (2003). Make-believe memories. American Psychologist, 58, 867–873.
21.
MarleyS. C.LevinJ. R., & GlenbergA. M. (2007). Improving Native American children's listening comprehension through concrete representations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 537–550.
22.
McVeeM. B.DunsmoreK., & GavelekJ. R. (2005). Schema theory revisited. Review of Educational Research, 75, 531–566.
23.
McVeeM. B.GavelekJ. R., & DunsmoreK. L. (2007). Considerations of the social, individual, and embodied: A response to comments on “Schema Theory Revisited”. Review of Educational Research, 77, 245–248.
24.
MillerK., & ZhouX. (2007). Learning from classroom video: What makes it compelling and what makes it hard. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB. & DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 321–334). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
25.
MorenoR., & ValdezA. (2007). Immediate and delayed effects of using a classroom case exemplar in teacher education: The role of presentation format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 194–206.
26.
PaivioA. (2007). Mind and its evolution: A dual coding theoretical approach.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
27.
PeirceC. S. (1986). Deduction, induction, and hypothesis. In KloeselC. J. W. (Ed.), Writings of Charles S. Peirce (Vol. 3, pp. 323–338). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
28.
PoletiekF. H. (2001). Hypothesis-testing behaviour.Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
29.
PopperK. R. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery.New York: Basic Books.
30.
SchwartzD. L., & BransfordJ. D. (1998). A time for telling. Cognition and Instruction, 16, 475–522.
31.
SchwartzD. L., & HartmanK. (2007). It's not television anymore: Designing digital video for learning and assessment. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB. & DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 335–348). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
32.
SchwartzD. L., & MartinT. (2004). Inventing to prepare for future learning: The hidden efficiency of encouraging original student production in statistics instruction. Cognition and Instruction, 22, 129–184.
33.
SherinM. G. (2007). The development of teachers' professional vision in video clubs. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB. & DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 383–395). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
34.
SherinM. G., & SherinB. L. (2007). Research on how people learn with and from video. In DerryS. J. (Ed.), Guidelines for video research in education: Recommendations from an expert panel (pp. 47–58). Chicago: Data Research and Development Center.
35.
SpiroR. J. (1977). Remembering information from text: The “state of schema” approach. In AndersonR. C.SpiroR. J. & MontagueW. E. (Eds.), Schooling and the acquisition of knowledge (pp. 137–165). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
36.
SpiroR. J.CollinsB. P., & RamchandranA. (2007). Reflections on a post-Gutenberg epistemology for video use in ill-structured domains: Fostering complex learning and cognitive flexibility. In GoldmanR.PeaR.BarronB. & DerryS. J. (Eds.), Video research in the learning sciences (pp. 93–100). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
SpiroR. J.CollinsB. P.ThotaJ. J., & FeltovichP. J. (2003). Cognitive flexibility theory: Hypermedia for complex learning, adaptive knowledge application, and experience acceleration. Educational Technology, 43(5), 5–10.
38.
SpiroR. J.VispoelW. P.SchmitzJ. G.SamarapungavanA., & BoergerA. E. (1987). Knowledge acquisition for application: Cognitive flexibility and transfer in complex content domains. In BrittonB. K. & GlynnS. M. (Eds.), Executive control processes in reading (pp. 177–199). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
39.
WhewellW. (1858). Novum organon renovatum.London: John W. Parker and Son.
40.
WigginsG., & McTigheJ. (1998). Understanding by design.Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
