Universities around the world are incorporating online learning, often relying on videos (asynchronous multimedia). We systematically reviewed the effects of video on learning in higher education. We searched five databases using 27 keywords to find randomized trials that measured the learning effects of video among college students. We conducted full-text screening, data extraction, and risk of bias in duplicate. We calculated pooled effect sizes using multilevel random-effects meta-analysis. Searches retrieved 9,677 unique records. After screening 329 full texts, 105 met inclusion criteria, with a pooled sample of 7,776 students. Swapping video for existing teaching methods led to small improvements in student learning (g = 0.28). Adding video to existing teaching led to strong learning benefits (g = 0.80). Although results may be subject to some experimental and publication biases, they suggest that videos are unlikely to be detrimental and usually improve student learning.
AbeysekeraL.DawsonP. (2015). Motivation and cognitive load in the flipped classroom: Definition, rationale and a call for research. Higher Education Research & Development, 34(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2014.934336
2.
AdesopeO. O.NesbitJ. C. (2012). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning environments: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(1), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026147
3.
AeltermanN.VansteenkisteM.HaerensL.SoenensB.FontaineJ. R. J.ReeveJ. (2019). Toward an integrative and fine-grained insight in motivating and demotivating teaching styles: The merits of a circumplex approach. Journal of Educational Psychology, 111(3), 497–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000293
4.
AlbalawiA. S. (2018). The effect of using flipped classroom in teaching calculus on students’ achievements at University of Tabuk. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 4(1), 198–207. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1169830
5.
AlexanderP. A. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: The art and science of quality systematic reviews. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 6–23. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319854352
6.
Al-SamarraieH. (2019). A scoping review of videoconferencing systems in higher education: Learning paradigms, opportunities, and challenges. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 20(3). https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v20i4.4037
7.
APA Publications and Communications Board Working Group on Journal Article Reporting Standards. (2008). Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be?The American Psychologist, 63(9), 839–851. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.9.839
8.
BaxterP.Akhtar-DaneshN.LandeenJ.NormanG. (2012). Teaching critical management skills to senior nursing students: Videotaped or interactive hands-on instruction?Nursing Education Perspectives, 33(2), 106–110. https://doi.org/10.5480/1536-5026-33.2.106
9.
BernardR. M.AbramiP. C.BorokhovskiE.WadeC. A.TamimR. M.SurkesM. A.BethelE. C. (2009). A meta-analysis of three types of interaction treatments in distance education. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1243–1289. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654309333844
10.
BeydoganH. Ö.HayranZ. (2015). The effect of multimedia-based learning on the concept learning levels and attitudes of students. Eurasian Journal of Educational Research, 60, 261–280. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1076689
11.
BiggsJ. B.TangC. (2011). Teaching for quality learning at university: What the student does. McGraw-Hill Education.
12.
BromC.StárkováT.D’MelloS. K. (2018). How effective is emotional design? A meta-analysis on facial anthropomorphisms and pleasant colors during multimedia learning. Educational Research Review, 25, 100–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.09.004
13.
ChangM.-M.LinM.-C. (2014). The effect of reflective learning e-journals on reading comprehension and communication in language learning. Computers & Education, 71, 124–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.09.023
14.
CheungM. W.-L. (2014). metaSEM: an R package for meta-analysis using structural equation modeling. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1521. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01521
15.
ChiM. T.AdamsJ.BoguschE. B.BruchokC.KangS.LancasterM.LevyR.LiN.McEldoonK. L.StumpG. S.WylieR.XuD.YaghmourianD. L. (2018). Translating the ICAP theory of cognitive engagement into practice. Cognitive Science, 42(6), 1777–1832. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.12626
16.
ChiM. T.WylieR. (2014). The ICAP framework: Linking cognitive engagement to active learning outcomes. Educational Psychologist, 49(4), 219–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
17.
ChippsJ.BrysiewiczP.MarsM. (2012). A systematic review of the effectiveness of videoconference-based tele-education for medical and nursing education. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing/Sigma Theta Tau International, Honor Society of Nursing, 9(2), 78–87. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-6787.2012.00241.x
18.
ChungK.-F.ChanM.-S.LamY.-Y.LaiC. S.-Y.YeungW.-F. (2017). School-based sleep education programs for short sleep duration in adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of School Health, 87(6), 401–408. https://doi.org/10.1111/josh.12509
ClarkR. E. (1994). Media will never influence learning. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 42(2), 21–29. http://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299088
CookD. A.GarsideS.LevinsonA. J.DuprasD. M.MontoriV. M. (2010). What do we mean by web-based learning? A systematic review of the variability of interventions. Medical Education, 44(8), 765–774. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2923.2010.03723.x
23.
CookD. A.LevinsonA. J.GarsideS.DuprasD. M.ErwinP. J.MontoriV. M. (2008). Internet-based learning in the health professions: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association, 300(10), 1181–1196. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.300.10.1181
24.
CredéM.RochS. G.KieszczynkaU. M. (2010). Class attendance in college: A meta-analytic review of the relationship of class attendance with grades and student characteristics. Review of Educational Research, 80(2), 272–295. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310362998
25.
DeeksJ. J.HigginsJ. P. T.AltmanD. G., on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. (2011). Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5.1.1). The Cochrane Collaboration.
DurlakJ. A. (2009). How to select, calculate, and interpret effect sizes. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 34(9), 917–928. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/jsp004
28.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. Guilford Press.
29.
EriksenM. B.FrandsenT. F. (2018). The impact of patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) as a search strategy tool on literature search quality: A systematic review. Journal of the Medical Library Association: JMLA, 106(4), 420–431. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2018.345
30.
EynonR.HelsperE. (2011). Adults learning online: Digital choice and/or digital exclusion?New Media & Society, 13(4), 534–551. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810374789
31.
FarooqI.Al-JandanB. A. (2015). Effect of video triggering during conventional lectures on final grades of dental students in an oral biology course: A two-year retrospective study. Journal of Dental Education, 79(12), 1467–1470. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26632302
32.
FernandezA.TanK.-A.KnaakS.ChewB. H.GhazaliS. S. (2016). Effects of brief psychoeducational program on stigma in Malaysian pre-clinical medical students: A randomized controlled trial. Academic Psychiatry: The Journal of the American Association of Directors of Psychiatric Residency Training and the Association for Academic Psychiatry, 40(6), 905–911. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40596-016-0592-1
33.
García-HolgadoA.Marcos-PablosS.García-PeñalvoF. (2020). Guidelines for performing systematic research projects reviews. International Journal of Interactive Multimedia and Artificial Intelligence, 6(2), 9. https://doi.org/10.9781/ijimai.2020.05.005
GinnsP. (2006). Integrating information: A meta-analysis of the spatial contiguity and temporal contiguity effects. Learning and Instruction, 16(6), 511–525. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2006.10.001
36.
GinnsP.MartinA. J.MarshH. W. (2013). Designing instructional text in a conversational style: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 25(4), 445–472. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-013-9228-0
37.
HedgesL. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass’s estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 6(2), 107–128. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986006002107
38.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1996). Estimating effect size under publication bias: Small sample properties and robustness of a random effects selection model. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 21(4), 299–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986021004299
39.
HigginsJ. P. T.AltmanD. G.SterneJ. A. C., & on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group and the Cochrane Bias Methods Group. (2011). Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In HigginsJ. P. T.GreenS. (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 5.1.1). The Cochrane Collaboration. https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_8/8_assessing_risk_of_bias_in_included_studies.htm
HuR.GaoH.YeY.NiZ.JiangN.JiangX. (2018). Effectiveness of flipped classrooms in Chinese baccalaureate nursing education: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 79, 94–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2017.11.012
43.
IlicD.NordinR. B.GlasziouP.TilsonJ. K.VillanuevaE. (2015). A randomised controlled trial of a blended learning education intervention for teaching evidence-based medicine. BMC Medical Education, 15(1), Article 39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-015-0321-6
44.
JangH.ReeveJ.DeciE. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682
KaplanR. M.IrvinV. L. (2015). Likelihood of null effects of large NHLBI clinical trials has increased over time. PLoS One, 10(8), e0132382. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0132382
47.
KayR. 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
48.
KozmaR. B. (1994). Will media influence learning? Reframing the debate. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 42(2), 7–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02299087
49.
KyawB. M.SaxenaN.PosadzkiP.VseteckovaJ.NikolaouC. K.GeorgeP. P.DivakarU.MasielloI.KononowiczA. A.ZaryN.Tudor CarL. (2019). Virtual reality for health professions education: Systematic review and meta-analysis by the digital health education collaboration. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 21(1), e12959. https://doi.org/10.2196/12959
50.
LawsonM. A.LawsonH. A. (2013). New conceptual frameworks for student engagement research, policy, and practice. Review of Educational Research, 83(3), 432–479. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313480891
51.
LazowskiR. A.HullemanC. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86(2), 602–640. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315617832
MathurM. B.VanderWeeleT. J. (2019a). New metrics for meta-analyses of heterogeneous effects. Statistics in Medicine, 38(8), 1336–1342. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.8057
54.
MathurM. B.VanderWeeleT. (2019b). Sensitivity analysis for publication bias in meta-analyses. In Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/s9dp6
55.
MayerR. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for the design of multimedia instruction. The American Psychologist, 63(8), 760–769. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.8.760
56.
MayerR. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
57.
MayerR. E.FiorellaL.StullA. (2020). Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
58.
MayerR. E.MorenoR. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6
MeansB.ToyamaY.MurphyR.BakiaM.JonesK. (2009). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies. U.S. Department of Education.
61.
MeansB.ToyamaY.MurphyR.BakiaM.JonesK. (2010). Evaluation of evidence-based practices in online learning: A meta-analysis and review of online learning studies (revised). U.S. Department of Education.
62.
MoeyaertM.UgilleM.Natasha BeretvasS.FerronJ.BunuanR.Van den NoortgateW. (2017). Methods for dealing with multiple outcomes in meta-analysis: a comparison between averaging effect sizes, robust variance estimation and multilevel meta-analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 559–572. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2016.1252189
63.
MoherD.LiberatiA.TetzlaffJ.AltmanD. G., & PRISMA Group. (2010). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. International Journal of Surgery, 8(5), 336–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
64.
MoherD.TetzlaffJ.TriccoA. C.SampsonM.AltmanD. G. (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. In PLOS Medicine, 4(3), e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
65.
MullerD. A.BewesJ.SharmaM. D.ReimannP. (2007). Saying the wrong thing: Improving learning with multimedia by including misconceptions. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 24(2), 144–155. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2729.2007.00248.x
66.
MullerD. A.SharmaM. D.ReimannP. (2008). Raising cognitive load with linear multimedia to promote conceptual change. Science Education, 92(2), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/sce.20244
O’DonovanJ.AhnR.NelsonB. D.KaganC.BurkeT. F. (2016). Using low-cost Android tablets and instructional videos to teach clinical skills to medical students in Kenya: A prospective study. JRSM Open, 7(8), 2054270416645044. https://doi.org/10.1177/2054270416645044
69.
PaulusT. M.PhippsG.HarrisonJ.VargaM. A. (2012). Re-envisioning instructional technology research in higher education environments: A content analysis of a grant program. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 24(3), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-012-9062-2
70.
PigottT. D.PolaninJ. R. (2020). Methodological guidance paper: High-quality meta-analysis in a systematic review. Review of Educational Research, 90(1), 24–46. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654319877153
71.
PustejovskyJ. E.RodgersM. A. (2019). Testing for funnel plot asymmetry of standardized mean differences. Research Synthesis Methods, 10(1), 57–71. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1332
72.
QinY.WangY.FlodenR. E. (2016). The effect of problem-based learning on improvement of the medical educational environment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Medical Principles and Practice: International Journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre, 25(6), 525–532. https://doi.org/10.1159/000449036
73.
R Core Team. (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 3.6.3) [Computer software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/
74.
RadiantiJ.MajchrzakT. A.FrommJ.WohlgenanntI. (2020). A systematic review of immersive virtual reality applications for higher education: Design elements, lessons learned, and research agenda. Computers & Education, 147, 103778. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2019.103778
75.
RathT. E.HoltD. W. (2010). Vicarious audiovisual learning in perfusion education. Journal of Extra-Corporeal Technology, 42(4), 305–312. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21313929
76.
ReyG. D. (2012). A review of research and a meta-analysis of the seductive detail effect. Educational Research Review, 7(3), 216–237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2012.05.003
77.
ReyG. D.BeegeM.NebelS.WirzbergerM.SchmittT. H.SchneiderS. (2019). A meta-analysis of the segmenting effect. Educational Psychology Review, 31(2), 389–419. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9456-4
78.
RolfeV. E.GrayD. T. (2011). Are multimedia resources effective in life science education? A meta-analysis. Bioscience Education, 18(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3108/beej.18.5
79.
SayedI. E.AbdelmonemS. (2018). 14 Evidence based medicine in low-middle income countries; online or face-to-face teaching method?Oral Sessions, 23, A7.2–A7. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111024.14
80.
SchneiderS.BeegeM.NebelS.ReyG. D. (2018). A meta-analysis of how signaling affects learning with media. Educational Research Review, 23, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001
81.
SchneiderS.NebelS.BeegeM.ReyG. D. (2018). The autonomy-enhancing effects of choice on cognitive load, motivation and learning with digital media. Learning and Instruction, 58, 161–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.06.006
82.
SchneiderM.PreckelF. (2017). Variables associated with achievement in higher education: A systematic review of meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 143(6), 565–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000098
SheaB. J.ReevesB. C.WellsG.ThukuM.HamelC.MoranJ.MoherD.TugwellP.WelchV.KristjanssonE.HenryD. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal, 358, j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
SpoorenP.BrockxB.MortelmansD. (2013). On the validity of student evaluation of teaching: The state of the art. Review of Educational Research, 83(4), 598–642. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654313496870
87.
SteedmanM.AbouammohM.SharmaS. (2012). Multimedia learning tools for teaching undergraduate ophthalmology: Results of a randomized clinical study. Canadian Journal of Ophthalmology/Journal Canadien D’ophtalmologie, 47(1), 66–71. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcjo.2011.12.006
88.
Tallent-RunnelsM. K.ThomasJ. A.LanW. Y.CooperS.AhernT. C.ShawS. M.LiuX. (2006). Teaching courses online: A review of the research. Review of Educational Research, 76(1), 93–135. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543076001093
TomlinsonJ.ShawT.MunroA.JohnsonR.MaddenD. L.PhillipsR.McGregorD. (2013). How does tele-learning compare with other forms of education delivery? A systematic review of tele-learning educational outcomes for health professionals. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 24(2), 70–75. https://doi.org/10.1071/NB12076
91.
TularamG. A.MachisellaP. (2018). Traditional vs non-traditional teaching and learning strategies: The case of e-learning!International Journal for Mathematics Teaching and Learning, 19(1), 129–158. http://www.cimt.org.uk/ijmtl/index.php/IJMTL/article/view/21
92.
UttlB.CnuddeK.WhiteC. A. (2019). Conflict of interest explains the size of student evaluation of teaching and learning correlations in multisection studies: A meta-analysis. PeerJ, 7, e7225. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7225
93.
UttlB.WhiteC. A.GonzalezD. W. (2017). Meta-analysis of faculty’s teaching effectiveness: Student evaluation of teaching ratings and student learning are not related. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 54, 22–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stueduc.2016.08.007
94.
Valenzuela-LeviN. (2020). The written and unwritten rules of internet exclusion: Inequality, institutions and network disadvantage in cities of the Global South. Information, Communication and Society, 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1716037
95.
Van GogT.EricssonK. A.RikersR. M.PaasF. (2005). Instructional design for advanced learners: Establishing connections between the theoretical frameworks of cognitive load and deliberate practice. Educational Technology Research and Development: ETR & D, 53(3), 73–81. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02504799
96.
van MerriënboerJ. J. G.SwellerJ. (2005). Cognitive Load Theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 17(2), 147–177. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-005-3951-0
WarnickB. R.BurbulesN. C. (2007). Media comparison studies: Problems and possibilities. Teachers College Record, 109(11), 2483–2510.
100.
WarschauerM.MatuchniakT. (2010). New technology and digital worlds: Analyzing evidence of equity in access, use, and outcomes. Review of Research in Education, 34(1), 179–225. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X09349791
101.
WoodL.EggerM.GluudL. L.SchulzK. F.JüniP.AltmanD. G.GluudC.MartinR. M.WoodA. J. G.SterneJ. A. C. (2008). Empirical evidence of bias in treatment effect estimates in controlled trials with different interventions and outcomes: Meta-epidemiological study. BMJ, 336(7644), 601–605. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39465.451748.AD
102.
WoodS.Mayo-WilsonE. (2012). School-based mentoring for adolescents: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Research on Social Work Practice, 22(3), 257–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731511430836
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
