Effects of Instruction–Problem Arrangements in Video Tutorials for Software Training

Hans van der Meij University of Twente ; Tessa Voerman

Abstract

Background: In this study, we examined the effectiveness of three instruction-production arrangements: instruction-problem solving (I-PS), problem solving-instruction (PS-I), and problem solving-instruction-problem solving (PS-I-PS)) in video tutorials for software training. Literature review: Most of the research on these arrangements stems from math and physics and has yielded equivocal outcomes. Studies of software training are scarce and have also led to varying results. In these studies, video access was prohibited once participants engaged in problem solving. Our study did not have this limitation. Research methodology: We followed an experimental approach with three conditions: I-PS, PS-I, and PS-I-PS. Research questions: 1. What is the effect of condition on video processing? 2. What is the effect of condition on motivation? 3: What is the effect of condition on procedural knowledge development? Results: In all conditions, all videos were viewed nearly in full. Replays of sections were scarce. In all conditions, self-efficacy rose substantially and more in I-PS than in PS-I. All conditions achieved very high scores on a final procedural knowledge test. I-PS did significantly better than PS-I on this test. Conclusion: The high absolute scores for self-efficacy and procedural knowledge presumably reflect the quality of the Demonstration-Based-Training videos developed for the study. Self-efficacy and procedural knowledge development was significantly higher in I-PS than in PS-I. In short, the data show that the best results were obtained for the video tutorial in which instruction preceded problem solving.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2024-12-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2024.3449508
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
OA PDF Green
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (0)

No references match articles in this index.

Also cites 48 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1145/1531326.1531372
  2. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.014
  3. 10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.002
  4. 10.1186/s41039-022-00187-x
  5. 10.1016/j.nedt.2018.07.001
  6. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.04.005
  7. 10.1007/s11251-020-09504-7
  8. 10.1111/bjep.12555
  9. 10.3390/su12187306
  10. 10.1002/acp.3651
  11. 10.1007/s11251-023-09616-w
  12. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.029
  13. 10.1109/CSTE55932.2022.00062
  14. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101859
  15. 10.1037/a0022777
  16. 10.1037/edu0000018
  17. 10.1007/s11251-019-09484-3
  18. 10.1007/s11251-016-9399-4
  19. 10.1007/s10648-010-9134-7
  20. 10.1037/0022-0663.76.4.647
  21. 10.1007/s10648-016-9379-x
  22. 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2017.10.002
  23. 10.1007/s10212-019-00445-5
  24. 10.3102/00346543211019105
  25. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.03.005
  26. 10.1016/j.compedu.2011.03.019
  27. 10.1002/acp.3649
  28. 10.3389/feduc.2021.720195
  29. 10.3102/0034654307313795
  30. 10.1111/bjet.12619
  31. 10.1145/2556325.2566239
  32. 10.55177/tc786532
  33. 10.1016/j.jarmac.2021.03.007
  34. 10.1016/j.edurev.2017.11.001
  35. 10.1007/s10648-018-9456-4
  36. 10.7551/mitpress/4616.003.0003
  37. 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104355
  38. 10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104132
  39. 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.003
  40. 10.1016/j.lindif.2018.06.009
  41. 10.1016/j.stueduc.2018.03.002
  42. 10.1037/apl0000228
  43. 10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.003
  44. 10.1007/s10648-011-9191-6
  45. 10.3102/0034654312474350
  46. 10.1080/00131911.2017.1340871
  47. 10.3102/0034654314564881
  48. 10.5465/amle.2011.0527