This study explored whether different types of instructional visuals-knowledge maps and pictorial illustrations-encourage students to focus on specific types of conceptual relationships during learning. Undergraduates (n = 134) studied a text lesson on the human nervous system accompanied by maps (text-with-maps group), illustrations (text-with-illustrations group), or no visuals (text-only group). Then all students orally explained what they learned as if they were teaching a peer. The text-with-maps group generated more hierarchical relationships than the other two groups, and both visual groups generated more temporal relationships than the text-only group. The groups did not significantly differ in the number of structural relationships generated. On a subsequent post-test, only the text-with-maps group significantly outperformed the text-only group, and the two visual groups did not significantly differ from each other. These findings highlight how different visuals affect the types of relationships students focus on when learning from the same text.

Two experiments compared the effects of learning by drawing to studying instructor-provided visuals on learning outcomes, learning time, and cognitive load. College students studied a text on the human circulatory system and completed comprehension and transfer tests. In Experiment 1 (N = 107), students studied the text with provided visuals (provided visuals) or generated their own drawings from the text with text-based support (verballysupported drawing) or without support (unsupported drawing). Results showed that while the verballysupported drawing condition spent significantly more time and experienced significantly higher cognitive load than the provided visuals condition, there were no differences across the three conditions in learning outcomes. In Experiment 2 (N = 85), students studied the text with provided visuals (provided visuals) or generated drawings from the text with provided visuals as feedback (visually-supported drawing). Results showed that the visually-supported drawing condition spent significantly more time and experienced significantly higher cognitive load than the provided visuals condition but also performed significantly better than the provided visuals condition on the comprehension test. These findings suggest generating drawings prior to studying provided visuals is worth the time and effort.

This study explores the role of the instructor's face and eye gaze as social and attentional cues in promoting learning from a video lecture on kidney physiology. In a 2 x 2 between-subjects design, 133 college students were randomly assigned to a gaze behavior condition and a video whiteboard type condition. The instructor either shifted her gaze between the learner and board (shifting) or only gazed at the board (fixed), and the instructor's gaze was either occluded (conventional whiteboard) or visible (transparent whiteboard) when facing the board. Learners' perceived engagement, gaze behavior, and learning were measured. Students in the conventional whiteboard group reported higher engagement and achieved higher posttest scores than students in the transparent whiteboard group (main effect of whiteboard), particularly when the instructor shifted her gaze between the learner and the board (whiteboard by gaze interaction). Furthermore, students in the conventional whiteboard condition attended more to the learning material on the board, whereas students in the transparent whiteboard group attended more to the instructor. Overall, learning was better when the instructor's social cues promoted engagement (i.e., by shifting gaze) without distracting learners from attending to the instructor's cues to attend to the whiteboard (i.e., by conventional whiteboards). Educational Impact and Implications Statement There is a growing demand for online courses but there are few validated practices to guide instructors on how to design and delivery effective online lessons. This study investigates whether an instructor's facing direction and eye gaze behavior can be used as cues to support student engagement, attention, and learning. Access to the instructor's eye gaze varied by whether she looked at the student and whether her face was visible to the students. We found that the instructor's face and eye gaze can direct students' attention during a video lecture, but also it may interfere with learning when students should attend to information on the board rather than to the instructor. Evidence from this study suggests that instructors should choreograph how they use their behavioral cues to guide students through a video lesson.

This paper reviews five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video and one way not to use instructional video. People learn better from an instructional video when the onscreen instructor draws graphics on the board while lecturing (dynamic drawing principle), the onscreen instructor shifts eye gaze between the audience and the board while lecturing (gaze guidance principle), the lesson contains prompts to engage in summarizing or explaining the material (generative activity principle), a demonstration is filmed from a first-person perspective (perspective principle), or subtitles are added to a narrated video that contains speech in the learner's second language (subtitle principle). People do not learn better from a multimedia lesson when interesting but extraneous video is added (seductive details principle). Additional work is needed to determine the conditions under which these principles apply and the underlying learning mechanisms.

This study tested whether creating drawings helps students generate higher-quality oral explanations during learning by teaching, thereby enhancing learning outcomes. 120 college students studied a scientific text about the human respiratory system. Students then either taught the material on video to a fictitious peer by orally explaining (explain-only), creating drawings (draw-only), or creating drawings while orally explaining (explain-and-draw). A control group of students spent the same amount of time restudying the lesson (restudy). One week later all students completed a posttest consisting of retention, transfer, and drawing questions. All three teaching conditions significantly outperformed the restudy condition on the posttest (d's ranging from.80 to 1.46). Critically, the explain-and-draw group also significantly outperformed the explain-only (d = .99) and the draw-only (d = .65) groups. Consistent with our primary hypotheses, the explain-and-draw group produced more elaborative oral explanations than the explain-only group, which partially explained the benefits of drawing while explaining on learning outcomes. Overall, this study demonstrates that drawing facilitates explaining and enhances the effectiveness of learning by teaching.

This study explored ways to foster generative learning during a narrated video lesson about the human kidney. In a 2 x 3 between-subjects design, 196 college students were randomly assigned to a video format condition and a learning strategy condition. Students listened to oral explanations from the instructor as they viewed either a series of static diagrams (static visuals) or the same diagrams dynamically drawn on the screen without the instructor visible (instructor-generated visuals). After each part of the lesson, students either wrote verbal explanations (explain) or created drawings (draw), or they rewatched that part of the lesson (rewatch). All students then completed retention and transfer tests on the material. Results indicated a significant main effect of learning strategy for retention and transfer: the explain group significantly outperformed the draw group (retention: d =.60; transfer: d =.67) and the rewatch group (retention: d =.58; transfer d =.87). There was also a significant video format by learning strategy interaction for transfer: explaining was most effective for students who observed instructor-generated visuals (ds > 1.0) rather than static visuals (ds <.5). These findings suggest that when learning from narrated video lessons with complex diagrams, students benefit most from viewing dynamically generated drawings and then verbally explaining what they learned. In contrast, creating drawings may not be appropriate for learning from diagram-heavy lessons. Overall, this study demonstrates the importance of aligning instructional methods with appropriate learning strategies.

This study explored the role of learner-generated and instructor-provided visuals in learning from scientific text. 134 college students studied a lesson on the human circulatory system and then completed recall and transfer tests. Across two consecutive study periods, students were randomly assigned to either view a provided illustration twice (provided-provided), generate a drawing from the text and then revise their drawing (generated-revised), view a provided illustration and then generate a drawing (provided-generated), or generate a drawing and then view a provided illustration (generated-provided). Results indicated a group by learning outcome interaction: the generated-provided and provided-generated groups performed higher on the transfer test and lower on the recall test compared to the provided-provided group. Furthermore, spatial ability was positively associated with learning outcomes among students who generated drawings but not among students in the provided-provided group. Finally, the relationship between spatial ability and learning outcomes among students who generated drawings was mediated by drawing quality. These findings suggest that provided and generated visuals have unique effects on different learning outcomes, and spatial ability plays an important role in supporting learner-generated visuals.

This study tested 3 instructor presence features in learning from video lectures: dynamic drawings, eye contact with the camera, and instructor visibility. In 2 experiments, college students watched a video lecture about the human kidney, which consisted of a series of drawings and a spoken explanation from the instructor, and then took a written posttest assessing retention and transfer. In Experiment 1, students viewed a lesson consisting of a spoken explanation coordinated with static, already-produced drawings (static drawings group) or with drawings dynamically created by the instructor (dynamic drawings group), both without the instructor visible. In support of the dynamic drawings hypothesis, a t test indicated the dynamic drawings group significantly outperformed the static drawings group on the posttest (d = .54). In Experiment 2, students viewed 2 new versions of the kidney lesson, in which the instructor was visible on the screen and either did not provide eye contact with the camera (conventional whiteboard group) or did provide eye contact (transparent whiteboard group). In support of the social agency hypothesis, a t test indicated the transparent whiteboard group significantly outperformed the conventional whiteboard group on the posttest (d = .54). Finally, consistent with the instructor visibility hypothesis, analyses comparing the dynamic drawings group and the transparent whiteboard group indicated no significant differences in posttest performance. Overall, these findings suggest that learning from video lectures is enhanced by specific instructor presence features, such as instructor dynamic drawing and instructor eye contact, rather than by merely having the instructor visible on the screen.

Learning by drawing can be an effective strategy for supporting science text comprehension. However, drawing can also be cognitively demanding and time consuming, and students may not create quality drawings without sufficient guidance. Furthermore, evidence for drawing is often based on comparisons to weak control conditions, such as students who only read the text without provided illustrations. In this review, we synthesize past research to help draw boundary conditions for learning by drawing, focusing on the role of comparison conditions and drawing guidance. First, we analyze how drawing compares to each of four control conditions: reading only, text-focused strategies (e.g., summarizing), other model-focused strategies (e.g., imagining), or viewing instructor-provided illustrations. Next, we distinguish among four levels of drawing guidance: minimal guidance, drawing training, partially provided illustrations, and comparison to instructor-provided illustrations. Our findings indicate that when compared to only reading the text or using text-focused strategies, creating drawings is consistently more effective at fostering comprehension and transfer, regardless of the level of drawing guidance provided. However, when compared to other model-focused strategies or to viewing instructor-provided illustrations, effects of creating drawings are mixed and may depend on the level of drawing guidance provided, among other factors. We discuss the theoretical and practical considerations of our findings and suggest several directions for broadening research on drawing.

In this commentary, we examine the papers in a special issue on Developments and Trends in Learning with Instructional Video. In particular, we focus on basic findings concerning which instructional features improve learning with instructional video (i.e., breaking the lesson into segments paced by the learner; recording from both first- and third-person perspectives) and which features or learner attributes do not (i.e., matching the instructor's gender to the learner's gender; having the instructor's face on the screen; adding practice without feedback; inserting pauses throughout the video; and spatial ability). In addition, we offer recommendations for future work on designing effective video lessons.