You are here:

Assessing the Effect of Instructional Video Design on Students’ Learning Outcome in an Online Technology Integration Course

, , , Arkansas Tech University, United States

Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference, in Jacksonville, Florida, United States ISBN 978-1-939797-07-0 Publisher: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), Chesapeake, VA


The purpose of this study was to investigate the design aspects of instructional video effecting students’ learning outcome in technology integration online course. The study assessed the effect of design instructional video based on the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning (CTML) by applying segmentation and signaling on students learning outcome. Further, this study assessed the correlation between students’ personal preferences (preferred learning styles and area of specialization) and their learning outcome. Three-group pretest-posttest design employed to assess whether there was significant differences in students' test scores after watching instructional video in online course. The results of the ANCOVA analysis indicate that there was significant effect of the design on students’ learning outcome. Moreover, results indicate that students’ learning preferences and area of specialization related significantly and positively to their learning outcome. These findings suggest that


Ibrahim, M., Callaway, R. & Bell, D. (2014). Assessing the Effect of Instructional Video Design on Students’ Learning Outcome in an Online Technology Integration Course. In M. Searson & M. Ochoa (Eds.), Proceedings of SITE 2014--Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference (pp. 349-356). Jacksonville, Florida, United States: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). Retrieved March 24, 2019 from .

View References & Citations Map


  1. Attneave, F. (1954). Some informational aspects of visual perception. Psychological review, 61(3), 183-193.
  2. Ayres, P.P.F. (2007). Making instructional animations more effective: a cognitive load approach. Applied cognitive psychology., 21(6), 695-700.
  3. Baddeley. (1986). Working memory. Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press. Baddeley, & Logie. (1999). Working memory: The multiple-component model. In A. Miyake & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory: mechanisms of active maintenance and executive control. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  4. Baggett, P. (1984). Role of temporal overlap of visual and auditory material informing dual media associations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76(3), 408-417.
  5. Barnett Sm, C.S.J. (2002). When and where do we apply what we learn? A taxonomy for far transfer. Psychological bulletin, 128(4), 612-637.
  6. Homer, B.D., Plass, J.L., & Blake, L. (2008). The effects of video on cognitive load and social presence in multimedia-learning. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(3), 786-797.
  7. Jacobson, H. (1950). The informational capacity of the human ear. Science (New York, N.Y.), 112(2901), 143144.
  8. Jacobson, H. (1951). The informational capacity of the human eye. Science (New York, N.Y.), 113(2933), 292-293.
  9. Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., & Sweller, J. (1999). Managing split-attention and redundancy in multimedia instruction. Applied cognitive psychology., 13(4), 351.
  10. Lowe, R.K. (1999). Extracting information from an animation during complex visual learning. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 14(2), 225-244.
  11. Lowe, R.K. (2003). Animation and learning: selective processing of information in dynamic graphics. Learning and Instruction Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 157-176.
  12. Mayer. (1996). Learning Strategies for Making Sense out of Expository Text: The SOI Model for Guiding Three Cognitive Processes in Knowledge Construction. Educational psychology review., 8(4), 357.
  13. Mayer. (2001). Multimedia learning. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Mayer. (2002). The promise of educational psychology: Learning in the content areas. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Merrill.
  15. Mayer. (2003). The promise of multimedia learning: Using the same instructional design methods across different media. Learning and Instruction, 13(2), 125.
  16. Mayer. (2005). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press. Mayer, & Chandler. (2001). When learning is just a click away: Does simple user interaction foster deeper understanding of multimedia messages? Journal of Educational Psychology., 93(2), 390.
  17. McLoughlin, C. (1999). The implications of the research literature on learning styles for the design of instructional material. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY, 15, 222-241.
  18. Mishra, P.K.M.J. (2006). Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017-1054.
  19. Moreno. (2004). Decreasing cognitive load for novice students: Effects of explanatory versus corrective feedback in discovery-based multimedia. Instructional Science, 32(1/2), 99-113.
  20. Moreno, R. (2007). Optimising learning from animations by minimising cognitive load: cognitive and affective consequences of signalling and segmentation methods. Applied cognitive psychology., 21(6), 765-781.
  21. Purcell, K.P.I., & American Life, P. (2010). The state of online video. From Shepard, R.N. (1967). Recognition memory for words, sentences, and pictures. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6(1), 156-163.
  22. Sweller. (1999). Instructional design in technical areas. Camberwell, Vic.: ACER Press. Sweller, Merrienboer, V., & Paas. (1998). Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design. Educational Psychology Review, 10(3), 251-296.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. If you see a mistake in the references above, please contact