Evaluation of videotaped instruction : an unlikely alternative to traditional instruction in a university setting

Abstract

Much current research has demonstrated that when maximum learning efficiency is desired, there are no consistent differences between instructional television (I.T.V.) and traditional instruction (T.I.). However, preliminary work here at Memorial University of Newfoundland has suggested that learning from T.I. was superior to learning from I.T.V. The present research attempted not only to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of I.T.V. and T.I. but also attempted to isolate the significant input variables which produce the actual learning in these situations, by introducing into the experimental teaching setting the “reverse” method of both I.T.V. and T.I. The opposite of traditional live lectures would be the videotapes of those actual live lectures while the opposite of the standard studio-produced tapes is to present, in sequence, the visual material of the studio tape live in the classroom. These experiments involved instruction on the topic of the cumulative curve followed by a difficult and carefully constructed posttest. Five different modes of Presentation were evaluated: 1) live lectures, 2) videotape of live lectures, 3) live lectures using videotaped inserts, 4) studio-produced videotapes, and 5) a text condition. Although few significant differences were found in the two experiments, with respect to the order of effectiveness the following consistent differences were found. First, live lectures produced superior learning; next, were videotapes of live lectures and live lectures using videotaped inserts; third, came studio-produced videotapes, and finally, the text produced the least effective learning. -- The individual difference variables of intelligence, degree of anxiety, and degree of extraversion-introversion did not interact significantly with any particular method to produce maximum learning in any “type” of student. Also correlational data revealed that students like and learn most not only from the methods which, in fact are the most effective , but also from the methods which they perceive to be most effective.