The comparative instructional effectiveness of print-based and video-based instructional materials for teaching practical skills at a distance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Print-based instructional materials have been more popular than any other medium for teaching practical skills during the delivery of technical and vocational education and training via distance learning. However, the approach has its shortcomings and in recent times alternatives have been sought. The comparative instructional effectiveness of one such alternative is the focus of this paper. The study sought to examine the instructional effectiveness of video-based instructional materials vis-à-vis traditional print-based instructional materials for teaching distance learners of a Block-Laying and Concreting practical skills programme. An experimental design was used and participants were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: Users of video-based instructional materials or users of print-based instructional materials. A researcher-designed performance test and an achievement test of 20 multiple-choice items were used to collect data from 34 participants who used print-based instructional materials and 35 participants who used video-based instructional materials to learn practical skills. The instruments were based on the instructional objectives of lessons on mortar and wall finish. Pilot test data for the achievement test yielded Cronbach’s alpha of 0.84. Descriptive statistics and t-test at a 0.05 level of significance were used to analyse the data. The results indicated that the two instructional materials were pedagogically equivalent in terms of theoretical knowledge acquired. Practical skills acquired, however, were significantly higher among users of video-based instructional materials. Finally, users of video-based instructional materials displayed significantly superior craftsmanship.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".