Instructional Video Design: Investigating the Impact of Monologue- and Dialogue-style Presentations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Instructional videos are frequently used in online courses and websites. Such videos may include an instructor delivering a monologue-style presentation, or alternatively, engaging in a dialogue with a student who appears in the video alongside of the instructor. We compared three instructional video designs (N = 77), including monologue and dialogue style presentations. To obtain a comprehensive view of the impact of video design, we used a variety of measures, including eye tracking data, learning gains, self-efficacy, cognitive load, social presence, and interest. Despite eye tracking data showing that participants in speaker-visible conditions spent significantly less time on the domain content, learning and related variables were similar in all three conditions, a result we confirmed with Bayesian statistics that provided substantial evidence for the null model. Altogether, we provide evidence that learning and interest are not enhanced by a dialogue-style presentation or visual presence of the instructor. However, further work is needed to investigate the effect of other domains, speaker persona and saliency, and configuration of the speakers in the instructional video.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it