Novel Video in Education: Friend, Foe or Faff? What makes video good for education, how do we use it successfully, and at what cost?

A collaborative assignment created by Anthony Rimmer (OrcID, LinkedIn), Katy Sheader (OrcID, LinkedIn) and Stephen Taylor (OrcID, LinkedIn) as part of the EDUC5265M Digital Education in Practice Module for the MA Digital Education from the University of Leeds' School of Education.

Introduction

A Brief History of Video

To better identify and support any future uses of video in education, it is pertinent to consider how we define video, and some of the technological developments that have underpinned its availability and affordances. This section provides a very brief overview of some of the uses of video that have occurred to date. This is not an exhaustive list, and is only intended to show variance in application.

According to etymology, ‘video’ was introduced into the English lexicon in 1935 and is described as the visual equivalent to audio (Etymology online, 2020).

Video: “The process of recording, reproducing, broadcasting, or distributing moving visual images on magnetic tape or (in later use) in a digital format.” (Oxford English Dictionary, 2023).

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a more sophisticated view of the technicalities of ‘video’, however, in our opinion a more recent definition might include additional terms like ‘on-demand’ or ‘streaming’ in view of current digital platforms and the delivery of video content, particularly via the internet.

In reference to the magnetic tape, some may recall a TV being wheeled into the classroom for shared viewing, often accompanied by a video player (See VCR, VHS, DVD, Blu-Ray etc.). A practice akin to current uses of mounted flat screens, projectors, or playback through teacher-assigned laptops; perhaps further indicative of the digital portion of the definition above.

The use of (broadcast) television within education, and to educate those not in formal learning is still ongoing today. One of the BBC's (British Broadcasting Company’s) key principles is “to support learning for people of all ages” (BBC, c2023). In 1988, Bates (p.215) draws on the power of television, in that it is a “rich medium in terms of information density (…) which combines words, still and moving pictures, events occurring in real time, slow or accelerated motion, animation and even text”. Interestingly, Clark (1983) broadly suggested at the time that video (as a form of media) provides no additional student achievement, and only influences cost and distribution. He further posits that it is only the content within the media which can impact student achievement. Both thoughts we look to explore further as part of this submission, but sets foundation for considering what makes video successful, the affordances, the pedagogic application, or both.

Another avenue of video to reflect on, is that of video conferencing. In early 1990s projects like DIANE (Diversified Information and Assistance NEtwork) (Anon, 1998) and the Global Schoolhouse (Anon, 1993) utilised video conferencing as ways of providing education to wider audiences. Each lending themselves to advances in science and technologies and promoting more open and diverse education. A sudden shift to Emergency Remote Teaching (Hodges et al. 2020), forced many institutions into using similar methods to continue education, utilising now-ubiquitous video conferencing software like Microsoft Teams, Google Meet or Zoom – The recordings of such (lectures, seminars, webinars) supporting learners through those benefits highlighted by Bates (1988) above, and in continued response to blended learning methods, such as hybrid, flipped and distance education (Hrastinski, 2019).

We touched upon the affordances of the internet earlier, but as we look at the history of video in education, it would be appropriate to highlight how it supports projects like the Khan Academy, MIT Open Courseware, FutureLearn, Coursera and more. These services primarily utilise instructional video in online packages like MOOCs (Massive Open Online Courses) (Baturay, 2015).

Finally, we recognise that the development of technologies has enabled the consumer, or in our case, learner to produce video content of their own. For example, video is now far more accessible financially. Video Tape and Video Cassette Recorders (VTR and VCR) used to have a prohibitive cost (McAdam and Vento, 1969), now we have prevalent mobile phones; capable of capturing and sharing motion picture (Berry and Schleser, 2014). Developments in web service applications such as Adobe Express, Canva and Microsoft Flip (Formally FlipGrid) can also be identified as avenues for both teacher and learner production – often provided free to education.

Video Pedagogy

Now we know the history of video in education it’s time to explore the fundamental reason for using it – the pedagogical benefits it brings. In this section we take a look at the following pedagogical theories in the context of video:

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning
Active and Passive Learning
Mastery for Learning

Cognitive Theory of Multimedia learning

Mayer (2021) presents the cognitive theory of multimedia learning based on three information processing capability assumptions; dual channel, limited cognitive load and active learning.

Dual Channel

The assumption of dual-channel information processing posits that humans process information from visual information in one channel, and auditory information in another, albeit simultaneously. One of the key advantages that video affords is the option to present information in both visual and auditory form, and therefore directly aligns itself to this consideration.

Cognitive Processing

Whilst this all sounds positive; Mayer’s second assumption draws on a learner’s limited capacity for cognitive processing. If we consider the richness of video as including all content types noted above, there is potential for quickly overloading a learner. To avoid this overload, Mayer presents three key considerations for reducing processing (load); Extraneous, Essential and Generative.

Extraneous: Reduction or removal of superfluous and unnecessary information
Essential: Bringing focus to key information to support working memory
Generative: Linking to prior learning to engage long-term memory

Active and Passive Learning

It is better that the students are active in their learning rather than passive. Video is great for promoting this more active approach and can have a greater impact on learning. After all learner application promotes the concept of students as creators, leading to higher order thinking (‘create)’ posed in Blooms Taxonomy (Bloom, 1956).

Broadly speaking, the impact of video use can be in part assessed by considering the type of learning that is taking place as a result of its use. Mayer (2021) uses three metaphors to categorise the ways in which multimedia (including video) can be employed by educators, and whether each type of use results in passive or active learning.

The first metaphor “Multimedia learning as response strengthening” (p.15) stems from the behaviourist perspective of learning in which multimedia provides a stimulus which elicits a response from the viewer, which in turn receives either ‘punishment or reward’. For example, to reinforce prior learning, a video could be used to demonstrate an important theoretical concept, with questions posed throughout the video, and points awarded for correct answers. This type of activity is acknowledged to only allow for passive learning, since the sole task is to produce the ‘correct’ answer as determined by the teacher, without having to consider the concept in more depth. Although this type of activity can be useful for retrieval of key terminology or basic factual information, it only employs the lower order thinking skill of ‘remembering’ (as identified in Bloom’s Taxonomy, 1956) and therefore does not result in meaningful learning.

The second metaphor is “multimedia learning as information acquisition” (p.16) indicating that the use of video is a tool to simply transfer information into the mind of the student. This is similarly limited in terms of the learning that takes place. Notwithstanding the importance of providing learners with key information relating to a particular subject and the efficiencies afforded by using video as the source of this information, there remains little control over what the learner does with the information they are receiving, whether it will be committed to long-term memory and whether meaningful connections will be made to strengthen knowledge (Mayer, 2021).

In contrast, the third metaphor “Multimedia as knowledge construction”, views its use as a “sense-making activity in which the learner seeks to build coherent mental representation from the presented material” (Mayer, 2021, p.17). This means it is based on constructivism and employs higher order thinking skills such as analysis and application. In this way, the learning that takes place is more meaningful since the learner is encouraged to use the learning material to build unique insights and apply their knowledge in a variety of ways. This type of multimedia based learning activity promotes active learning, and requires the teacher to scaffold the activity just enough to provide a set of guiding stimuli, whilst allowing the learner to organise their acquired knowledge in a way that is meaningful to them. This form of active learning will ultimately furnish the learner with a deeper understanding of the topics covered, allowing them to make sense of complex information in a more impactful way (Mayer, 2021). An example of how this could be applied in practice could be asking learners to watch a YouTube video about a particular topic, with a set of pre-written, higher-order questions in which learners need to consider their own feelings or ideas relating to the information that is presented. They could then organise their thoughts and present a summary of their responses in their own video using Flip. In this activity, the learner is not only being asked to absorb key information, but also to reflect, summarise and organise their ideas in a way that not only makes sense to them but can also be understood by others. It is clear that this type of activity promotes active learning, and achieves much more than simply testing their memory.

These collective considerations from Mayer can help to design video content for education, whilst carefully considering the learner’s cognitive ability.

Separately from Mayer, there is also a model that explores whether learners are active or passive in their learning called ICAP. This framework helps you asses whether an activity is:

Infographic created by Stephen Taylor. (Chi & Wylie, 2014; Conole, 2019)

Although there are some similarities in the ICAP model there is some variation in the definition of active learning – ICAP places interactive multiple choice queries as Active learning whereas Mayer defines it as passive. This highlights the difficulty in defining exactly what engages the learner to learn most effectively, but both agree that the more complex and interactive a task you present the learner, the more effective the learning is.

Mastery for Learning

Vygotsky (1978) originally suggested that learning should be scaffolded, slowly building students knowledge base, also known as their schema (Sweller et al, 2011) and is integral to many pedagogical approaches.

Video lends itself very neatly to the concept described by Bloom (1968) as Mastery for Learning. This is his concept that anyone can learn any topic given the right conditions. As long as you break it up into small enough chunks, give regular assessment and feedback on their learning within those chunks and give options for learners to continue learning outside the classroom (McNeil, 1969).

This approach has been capitalized on successfully by Salman Khan in the Khan Academy. In his TED Talk on ' Let's use video to reinvent education’ he talks at length about this Mastery approach. The learner must show, through automatically marked online tests, that they have grasped a concept by being able to answer 10 concurrent questions correctly. If they make a mistake it takes them back to a video that explains the step they got stuck on, then they attempt mastery again. It does not allow moving on until those 10 concurrent questions are correctly answered. They then move to a related topic that will need the previously learnt concepts to succeed. (Khan, 2013). Khan is also clearly influenced by Keller’s Personalised System of Instruction which suggests learners need to show 90% understanding before moving to another topic, there should be continuous testing with immediate feedback that is as self-paced as possible for learners. (Dempsey, 2008)

This is clearly active learning as the learner is required to utilise higher order thinking skills, such as applying their own understanding, and they are constantly having the material reinforced to help scaffold their learning.

This has also become an integral part of the flipped classroom. Scaffold the learning before the session, test their understanding then use the lesson itself to deal with common misconceptions, allow peer learning and create a more personalised approach to learning for each student. (Bergmann and Sams, 2008)

The students, however, do need to ‘buy in’ to this form of learning and it can take some time for them to get used to it.

Keeping the Learner in Mind

Speaking of student ‘buy in’, it is important to remember the demographics of your learners. These will affect how useful video is to them. For instance:

Accessibility

Not all students can access content in the same way. They may have a permanent or situational disability that makes it difficult for them to use video content effectively. To support as many students of these students as possible, the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG, 2021) suggests paying attention to:

User experience (knowing your viewers)
Planning inclusively from the start
Description of visual content
Alternative Formats (e.g. transcripts with descriptors)
Captions/Subtitles
Including a translator for sign language
Media Player choice

These should be the baseline things you consider with all video use.

Technology

You need to make sure the infrastructure is present for students to be able to access the content. 6% of households in the UK don’t have internet access, 21% only access the internet through a mobile phone. And these percentages vary between age groups and levels of local deprivation (Ofcom, 2022). This doesn’t account for shared devices or limited personal space either.

You need to consider all of these when making decisions to use video.

General Data Protection Regulation

Whenever you assess a new piece of software you need to ensure you follow your organisations policy on data protection. In most cases this means creating a Data Protection Initial Assessment (DPIA) which is a form of risk assessment for your organisation’s information services department to review and decide whether it is safe to use or not. (ICO, Undated).

Assessing Three Novel Uses

Now that we have outlined good pedagogy and practice around video use in education, we analyse three novel uses of video. We set out to answer the following:

What is it?
What’s the pedagogy behind it?
What does it cost?
Accessibility concerns?
Privacy concerns?

Short-form video – Microsoft Flip

What is it?

Pedagogy

For our course the very first activity we were set was to post a Flip introducing ourselves to our colleagues. It helped me put faces to names and to understand where people were coming from.

Induction Activity from University of Leeds MA in Digital Education Course

There are studies from across multiple curricula that show that students find it more useful than ordinary discussion rooms for distance learning as they feel they can connect more with the people they are having discussions with. They also found that higher–order thinking skills were often being included in these discussions as it increases the criticality that students approach topics with, due to the conversational nature of the videos (Lowenthal and Moore, 2020; Stoszkowski and Collins, 2022; Green and Green, 2019; Rinfret and Forster, 2019; Sebach, 2022). It has been shown to be useful in physical, skills-based curricula as it allows learners and educators to review and analyse form whilst distance learning as well as being very easy to record using just the mobile app wherever they are (Taylor et al, 2022; Stoszkowski and Collins, 2022).

Educators find it useful for providing targeted, individualised feedback quickly and easily; gives them a clearer sense of what knowledge the learners have and allows for deeper communal, collaborative work between students (Green et al, 2021).

Linking it to the pedagogical applications we have identified above, Microsoft Flip predominantly reduces cognitive load as shown by the studies where higher order thinking and criticality is increased, however in some cases it can increase it as well due to learner’s social anxiety and the fear of being recorded (Keiper et al, 2021). As you can see in the accompanying image the prevalence of filters and stickers can also lead to cognitive overload, and students will be tempted to use them.

A mock image made showing how the screen can become cluttered quickly with only a few stickers, text, captions and a filter.

It is active learning that meets both the Interactive and Constructive components of ICAP as students are creating their own content and collaborating with one another through their discussions. It also increases student engagement (Green et al, 2021) and the ability to give direct feedback to content posted, by both educators and students alike, lends itself well to the Mastery for Learning concept.

Cost

At the time of writing this article Microsoft Flip is free for anyone to use. They just need to sign up and create either an educator or a student account.

Accessibility Concerns

Flipgrid automatically creates a transcript and closed captions of videos so it meets the accessibility needs of most users, this is automated however, so will need to be checked for inconsistencies. It also now has a teleprompter function to aid in recording. It doesn’t however offer audio description of video so additional work may be required for learners requiring this.

It can be used on most mobile devices and any computer with a webcam and a microphone so it is accessible to most learners, but provision of devices may be required in deprived areas.

Privacy concerns

This is the big downfall of Flip. Despite the fact it is owned by Microsoft the data is stored in America rather than locally (Flip, 2022). It also has features allowing sharing of videos externally that require staff guidance and training. Because of this you need to be very clear when setting up the DPIA. Some institutional IT policies may prevent you from utilising the software. I personally had to re-plan an in-person training event where I was booked as a guest speaker as Flip did not pass the DPIA for an organisation.

Telestration

Pedagogy

One of the key advantages of telestration in education is its ability to improve recall. By providing learners with visual aids, teachers can help them remember complex information more easily. For instance, a teacher can use telestration to draw attention to key concepts in educational videos, making them more memorable and easier to retrieve from their long-term memory (Jones, 2020). Furthermore, the use of telestration can allow academics more of a voice in terms of personalising the message they want to deliver to their students, employing dual-channelling by specifically targeting the essential information within the visual channel, therefore reducing cognitive load.

There is limited research into use of telestration in Higher Education, however, Smith et al (2022), carried out research in the use of telestration in improving recall in elite football players and found that its use had a significant impact on memory recall of tactical information, compared with the control group who did not use telestrated videos in coaching (Smith et al, 2022).

Additionally, telestration is an effective tool to be used in conjunction with instructional videos. For instance, as learning technologists we are often tasked with demonstrating the use of various equipment and hardware. Through the use of telestrated videos we can draw attention to various parts of the devices and answer questions from users in real time if used in conjunction with video conferencing. This enables enhanced remote instruction and is an effective and efficient way of showing staff how to use equipment.

Cost

There are various types of equipment that can be used to enable telestration. The use of a graphics tablet and pen that allows for video input means you can easily write and draw over the top of videos. These range in price from around £200 to upwards of £1000 for more advanced features, however for the purposes of writing and doing simple drawings and symbols over videos, the cheaper options will usually be adequate. Examples include Huion Kamvas Pro 16 and Wacom Creative Pen Display, which both retail at around £400. This makes telestration relatively low cost for institutions to purchase, although, the cost could be prohibitive for multiple lecturers to have their own. Similarly, although this equipment can allow for interactive collaboration (for example multiple students can draw or annotate the same video in real time), it is unlikely that all students would own the equipment required to allow for widespread use throughout institutions. When teaching, there is the option for lecturers using MS Teams to use the whiteboard feature to live annotate videos during online sessions, which could be considered another form of telestration.

In addition to the monetary costs, it also cost time and effort. To create the short, telestrated video above the process to set up the equipment was quite convoluted, through lack of familiarity and required support.

Accessibility Concerns

From an accessibility standpoint, the use of telestration could be problematic. For instance, although screen reading software can read video transcripts, they would be unlikely to include annotated text, and would not include audio descriptions of any drawings by default. This could mean that the extra information provided through use of telestration might not be available to visually impaired users. Similarly, telestration equipment can offer many colour options for drawings and notes to make them stand out from the video, however, not all of these will be visible to users who are colour-blind. In these instances, alternative formats or additional notes in the transcript should be provided.

Privacy Concerns

Presenters should be sensitive to the content they are telestrating and ensure it doesn’t include any personally identifying information of learners, or that the content has been blurred out.

360 Video

What is it?

Video credits: Anthony Rimmer, NOAA Sanctuaries

Pedagogy

Kavanagh (2016) gives insight of poor historic uptake of VR within education, referring to the “overhead incurred by both content developers and users” (p.34). In the same paper, they propose 360 video as a “consumer friendly” (p.34) way of incorporating VR into education. We extend this rationale by linking some of the explored benefits of 360 video with learning theory and potential interactive technologies.

Firstly, we consider the potential benefit to the learner. As a minimum, 360 video provides the viewer with additional interactive control through a chosen field of view or perspective (Calvet et al. 2019) and therefore, an active engagement experience (Violante et al, 2019). It is partly through this control that Johnsen-Glenberg (2018) refer to the agency assigned to the learner. This is potentially more evident where interactive elements are added (Snelson and Hsu, 2020). As a counter consideration, it would be appropriate to remind ourselves of Mayer’s (2021) cognitive load theory; whereby limited learner processing can be overloaded, particular through distraction of VR and 360 video (Paragon and Mayer, 2018; Snelson and Hsu, 2020). Kavanagh (2016) similarly posits the potential distraction of content within a 360 environment, but also draws on the potential for real world distractions being reduced or negated due to the immersive nature of wearing an HMD. Snelson and Hsu (2020) reference how such distractions can impact the overall educational outcomes.

The added notion of being immersed within VR is one which makes 360 video unique from what we might consider planar video, and affording a learner an aspect of ‘presence’ (Chung, 2012; Falah et al., 2014; Rizzo et al., 2000, all cited in Kavanagh, 2016). Presence; “particular form of psychological immersion, the feeling that you are at a location in the virtual world” (Dede and Richards, 2017, cited in Johnsen-Glenberg). Through this experience of presence, learners could situationally associate with feelings such as empathy (Pirker and Dengel, 2021; Snelson and Hsu, 2020), Kavanagh (2016) points out that the inclusion of camera equipment, such as tripods or hands can be seen within footage – attributing to a potential reduction in the immersive quality, which may also impact potential for associated feelings.

360 image showing disproportionate thumbs and fingers

Cost

In terms of costing associated with 360 video, it would be appropriate to consider both recording and viewing. At the time of writing, the market presents several capable cameras within a £200-500 bracket (before any potential educational pricing application) - see examples from Insta360, Ricoh, GoPro and others. At this point it would also be appropriate to recognise that additional costs for mounts, tripods and storage mediums are likely incurred separately to the camera, although some institutions may find universal equipment within existing photography and film resources. If the use of headsets is desired, this can be done so inexpensively through the likes of Google Cardboard, DodoCase VR or Samsung Gear (Broida, 2016; Violante et al., 2019, Snelson and Hsu, 2020). However, it is noted that these devices rely on mobile phones for video display, and therefore likely shifting the onus on usability to the viewer (learner) – A potential for exclusion which requires consideration when choosing equipment. More expensive HMDs such as the Oculus series from Meta, or the Vive from Samsung may offer a greater quality immersive experience on account of device fitment/comfort, built-in video quality and advanced interaction features for real-word objects (Snelson and Hsu, 2020; Pirker and Dengel, 2021).

Companies such as RedBox VR and Classroom VR offer bundled camera and multiple HMD packages aimed at education. Such packages described as making device management easier for the institution; potentially alleviating the complexities of privacy and licensing. However, it would still be appropriate to consider the complexities of storage, infrastructure (power, WiFi), as well as any institutional IT policy which would prevent access to video libraries or extended use of VR through apps.

Accessibility Concerns

It is important to recognise that 360 video can also be viewed more inclusively through a flat screen, and interacted with through keyboard and mouse, or through touch, pan and tilt of a mobile device. Mayer (2021) suggests that this would reduce the immersive aspect, however there are the other benefits of 360 video as noted above which extend both forms of viewing. This can also be extended through interactive tools like those available in services like H5P, ThingLink or Vimeo. These permit an additional information layer, whilst allowing for Mayer’s segmenting and multimedia principles (Mayer, 2021).

Hughes and Montagud (2021) assess conclude that at time of their writing, there was limited to no accessibility support within most 360 video players, drawing on the complexities of subtitle/caption or sign interpreter and more, particularly in relation to placement within scene. In contrast to those, they refer to the ImAc player as capable of addressing accessibility requirements.

There are also several other health and inclusion concerns also associated with the use of HMDs, which should be taken into consideration. These include:

HMD fitting, including for those with glasses
Use for poor/non-sighted users
Perspectives relative to wheelchair users
HMD menu systems: text size, colour and audible feedback/interactions
Physiological implications (nausea, spatial awareness, dizziness or lack of balance)
Psychological implications (changes in emotion, distraction, blurring of reality/fiction)

(Gerling et al, 2020; W3C, 2017; Aubrey et al, 2018; Figueroa & Kappler, 2022; Gov UK: BEIS, 2020)

Privacy Concerns

360 video is like most other elements of recording or image capture. The additional use of a HMD may also present further privacy considerations. With this in mind, the following questions should be considered as a minimum:

Who and what is within the video?
Where will the video be hosted/shared and how for long?
What accounts are required to watch or interact with the video, inclusive of those for HMDs?

It should be noted that some off-the-shelf HMDs require a user account to use the device. Where devices are used in a shared setting, both account and usage privacy should be considered.

Future Considerations

This has been a very general look at the pedagogy underpinning video and some of the concepts surrounding them to find any commonalities between novel uses. There are models out there for general assessment of the use of technology. At the start of this module, we were introduced to the Technology Acceptance Model (TAM) (Davis, 1989), The Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT) (Venkatesh, 2003) and UTAUT2 (Venkatesh, 2012) for assessing how people decide whether to use technology. There is the ICAP model for assessing how useful the content is from a learning perspective and there are a few more models we have encountered in our research SECTIONS(Bates, 2019; Conole, 2020), SAMR (Conole, 2020). However, none seem specifically built to look at just video. From our analysis we have come up with a potential model that could be used called VIDEOS.

Infographic created by Anthony Rimmer

The effectiveness of this would need to be tested in further research, however, it is a good starting point based on our observations.

Conclusion

In summary, whilst there are studies on individual applications of novel video there is little literature on the topic as a whole. Through our study of three successful novel uses we have found commonalities between them. Each increases the student’s ability to recall information, encourages higher order thinking, reduces cognitive load and helps with mastery for learning. They also have similar accessibility concerns.

To answer the question we posed in the title, the novel video in education can be a friend, a foe and a faff to educators at the same time. But our research shows it is more of a friend pedagogically. It becomes a foe when accessibility, privacy and organisational compliance concerns are not met. And it can be a faff as you need specific software and hardware for it that costs both time and money to use.

How we worked together

As distance-education students we have relied on the use of technology to enable us to complete this assignment. The affordances of MS Teams and WhatsApp have enabled us to maintain communication throughout, and the live-edit capabilities of MS Word has allowed us to collaboratively write and edit each other's work whilst video conferencing, as well as asynchronously.

Working together on this project has been hugely successful. Given the similarities in our roles coupled with our various skill sets which includes expertise in different forms of technology, experiences of teaching and training, and knowledge of working within different educational settings, we were able to draw upon a wide range of collective knowledge which has been utilised within the assignment. Working together in an established friendship group enables us to not only support each other in a professional capacity, but also on an emotional level meaning we are comfortable offering reassurances and constructive feedback to one another with mutual understanding and respect. The experience of working together has been enjoyable and we hope to collaborate further on future projects.

Creative commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

References

Andrist, L., Chepp, V., Dean, P., & Miller, M. V., 2014. Toward a Video Pedagogy: A Teaching Typology with Learning Goals. Teaching Sociology, 42(3), 196–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092055X14524962
Anon 1993. Live video link on the Internet makes global learning a reality. Information today. 10(6), pp.20–21.
Anon 1998. Project DIANE Brings Videoconferencing to Tennessee Schools. THE journal: technological horizons in education. 26(4), p.40
Aubrey J. S., et al. 2018. Virtual Reality 101: What You Need to Know About Kids and VR. San Francisco, CA: Common Sense. [Online]. Available From: https://www.commonsensemedia.org/sites/default/files/research/report/csm_vr101_final_under5mb.pdf
Bates, A.W. 1988. Television, Learning and Distance Education. Journal of Educational Television, 14:3, 213-225, DOI: 10.1080/0260741880140305
Bates, A.W. 2019. Teaching in a Digital Age. 2. BCcampus Open Publishing. [Online] available at: https://opentextbc.ca/teachinginadigitalage/part/9-pedagogical-differences-between-media/ [Accessed: 01 May 2023]
Baturay, M.H. 2015. An Overview of the World of MOOCs. Procedia, social and behavioral sciences. 174, pp.427–433.
BBC, 2023. Misson, Values and Public Purposes. [Online]. Available from: https://www.bbc.com [Accessed 29 April 2023].
Gov UK: Department of Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy (BEIS). 2020. The safety of domestic virtual reality systems – A literature review [Online]. Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/923616/safety-domestic-vr-systems.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2023].
Bergmann, J. and Sams, A. 2012. Flip your classroom : reach every student in every class every day. Eugene, Oregon: International Society for Technology in Education.
Berry, M. and Schleser, M. 2014. Mobile media making in an age of smartphones First edition. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan pp.12
Bloom, B. S., 1968 Learning for Mastery. Instruction and Curriculum. Regional Education Laboratory for the Carolinas and Virginia, Topical Papers and Reprints, Number 1.
Broida, R. 2016. How to Get Virtual Reality on the Cheap. Money (Chicago, Ill.). 45(4), p.20–.
Calvet et al. ICEEL '19: Proceedings of the 2019 3rd International Conference on Education and E-Learning November 2019 Pages 95–99 https://doi.org/10.1145/3371647.3371667
Ceci, L., 2023 TikTok: video duration 2022-2023, by video views Statista. [Online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1372569/tiktok-video-duration-by-number-of-views/#statisticContainer [Accessed: 01 May 2023]
Cengage, 2023 Higher Education for the TikTok Generation: How institutions can integrate technology to engage students and enhance teaching and learning. UK: Cengage. [Online] Available at: https://www.cengage.uk/engagement/ [Accessed: 01 May 2023]
Christ, T., Arya, P. and Chiu, M. M., 2017 'Video use in teacher education: An international survey of practices', Teaching and Teacher Education, 63, pp. 22-35.
Clark, R.E. 1983. Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of educational research. 53(4), pp.445–459.
Conole, G 2020. Rethinking pedagogy for a digital age: principles and practices of design Third Edition. (H. Beetham & R. Sharpe, eds.). New York: Routledge, is an imprint of the Taylor and Francis Group, an informa business.
Cynamon, J. and Herman, K.C., 2012 Telestrator uses in the cath lab, Endovascular Today. [Online] Available at: https://evtoday.com/articles/2012-jan/telestrator-uses-in-the-cath-lab [Accessed: 14 May 2023].
Davis, F.D. 1989. Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information Technology. MIS Quarterly. (September),pp.319–340. https://www.jstor.org/stable/249008?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Dede C., Richards J. (2017). Glossary of realities' terms, in Virtual, Augmented, and Mixed Realities in Education, eds Liu D., Dede C., Richards J. (Berlin: Springer Verlag; ), 5–11
Dempsey, H. (2007) 'Keller's Personalized System of Instruction: Was it a fleeting fancy or is there a revival on the horizon?', The Behavior Analyst Today, 8, pp. 317-324.
Etymology Online. [online]. August 2020. Video. [Online] Available from: https://www.etymonline.com [Accessed: 29th April 2023]
Ferdig, RE, Baumgartner, E, Hartshorne, R, Kaplan-Rakowski, R & Mouza, C (eds) 2020, Teaching, Technology, and Teacher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: Stories from the Field. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE). [Online] Available at: https://www.learntechlib.org/p/216903 [Accessed: 14 May 2023]
Figueroa Jacinto, R. and Kappler, E. 2022. A Discussion on Accessibility, Inclusivity, Cultural Design Considerations, and Health & Safety Advisories for Virtual Reality Head Mounted Displays. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. 66(1), pp.1706–1710.
Flip 2022, Flip Privacy Policy [Online] Available at: https://info.flip.com/en-us/about/trust-and-safety/privacy-policy.html#accordion-57b9ebfc68-item-92315c5b8d [Accessed 15 May 2023]
Gerling, K., Dickinson, P., Hicks, K., Mason, L., Simeone, A. L., & Spiel, K. 2020. Virtual reality games for people using wheelchairs. 2020 CHI Conf Honolulu, USA. [Online]. Available from: http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/id/eprint/40065/1/CHI2020%20Gerling%20et%20al%20camera-ready.pdf [Accessed 23 February 2023]
Gibbs, Graeme. 2015. Innovative pedagogies series: Video creation and reuse for learning in higher education. Higher Education Academy. [Online] Available at: https://s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets.creode.advancehe-document-manager/documents/hea/private/graham_gibbs_final_1568037365.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2023]
Google Ads Help (Undated) Shortform and Longform videos. [Online] Available at: https://support.google.com/google-ads/answer/2382886 [Accessed 01 May 2023]
Green, T. and Green, J. 2018. Flipgrid: Adding Voice and Video to Online Discussions. TechTrends. 62(1), pp.128–130.
Green, T.D., Besser, E.D. and Donovan, L.C. 2021. More than Amplifying Voice and Providing Choice: Educator Perceptions of Flipgrid Use in the Classroom. TechTrends. 65(5), pp.785–795.
Hodges, C., Moore, S., Lockee, B., Trust, T., & Bond, A. (2020). The Difference between Emergency Remote Teaching and Online Learning. EDUCAUSE Review. [Online] Available at: https://er.educause.edu/articles/2020/3/the-difference-between-emergency-remote-teaching-and-online-learning [Accessed 05 May 2023]
Hrastinski, S. What Do We Mean by Blended Learning?. TechTrends 63, 564–569 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00375-5
Hughes, C.J. and Montagud, M. 2021. Accessibility in 360° video players. Multimedia tools and applications. 80(20), pp.30993–31020.
ICO. 2021. Data Protection Impact Assessments (DPIAs). [Online] Available at: https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-data-protection/guide-to-the-general-data-protection-regulation-gdpr/data-protection-impact-assessments-dpias/ [Accessed: 01 May 2023]
Johnson-Glenberg, M.C. 2018. Immersive VR and Education: Embodied Design Principles That Include Gesture and Hand Controls. Frontiers in robotics and AI. 5, pp.81–81.
Jones, K. 2020 Retrieval practice: Resources and research for every classroom. 2nd edition. John Catt Educational Ltd, Suffolk.
Kaltura 2022. The State Of Video in Education 2022 Global Insights and Trends in K-12 & Higher Ed. [Online] Available at: https://corp.kaltura.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/2022-state-of-video-in-education-kaltura.pdf [Accessed 26 April 2023]
Kavanagh, S., Luxton-Reilly, A., Wüensche, B. and Plimmer, B. 2016. Creating 360° educational video: a case study In: Proceedings of the 28th Australian Conference on computer-human interaction. ACM, pp.34–39.
Keiper, M.C., White, A., Carlson, C.D. and Lupinek, J.M. 2021. Student perceptions on the benefits of Flipgrid in a HyFlex learning environment. Journal of education for business. 96(6), pp.343–351.
Linde, c2022. Monoscopic Vs Stereoscopic VR. [Online]. . Available from: https://vr.linde.com/2022/11/09/monoscopic-vs-stereoscopic-360-vr/. [Accessed: 10 May 2023]
Liberatore, M.J. and Wagner, W.P. 2021. Virtual, mixed, and augmented reality: a systematic review for immersive systems research. Virtual reality: the journal of the Virtual Reality Society. 25(3), pp.773–799.
Lo, C.K. and Hew, K.F. 2020. A comparison of flipped learning with gamification, traditional learning, and online independent study: the effects on students’ mathematics achievement and cognitive engagement. Interactive learning environments. 28(4), pp.464–481.
Lowenthal, P.R. and Moore, R.L. 2020. Exploring student perceptions of flipgrid in online courses. Online learning (Newburyport, Mass.). 24(4), pp.28–41.
Mariotti, M. (2022) Reinventing ‘see one, do One, teach one’ for the 21st Century: New Applications of Live Video for Medical Education, TIMS Medical. [Online] Available at: https://tims.com/reinventing-sodto-medical-education/ [Accessed: 14 May 2023].
Mayer, Richard E. (2021) Multimedia Learning. Third Edition. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
McAdam, J.R. and Vento, C.J. 1969. Portable Video Tape Recorder. A Guide for Teachers. Publication Sales Section, National Education Association.
Michelene T. H. Chi & Ruth Wylie (2014) The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes, Educational Psychologist, 49:4, 219-243, DOI: 10.1080/00461520.2014.965823
Moorhouse, Konhke. 2021. Thriving or Surviving Emergency Remote Teaching Necessitated by COVID-19: University Teachers’ Perspectives, [Online] Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40299-021-00567-9 [Accessed: 14 May 2023]
Ofcom, 2022 Digital exclusion A review of Ofcom’s research on digital exclusion among adults in the UK. UK: Ofcom. [Online] Available at: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0022/234364/digital-exclusion-review-2022.pdf (Accessed: 30 April 2023).
OfS. 2023. Blended learning and OfS regulation Office for Students [Online] Available at: https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/publications/blended-learning-and-ofs-regulation/summary/ [Accessed: 30 April 2023]
Oxford English Dictionary. 3rd ed. 2016. s.v. Video, p.1374. [Online]. Available from: www.oed.com [Accessed 29 April 2023].
Pirker, J. and Dengel, A. 2021. The Potential of 360° Virtual Reality Videos and Real VR for Education-A Literature Review. IEEE computer graphics and applications. 41(4), pp.76–89.
Parong, J. and Mayer, R.E. 2018. Learning Science in Immersive Virtual Reality. Journal of educational psychology. 110(6), pp.785–797.
QAA Scotland. Undated. Lecture recording [Online] Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/scotland/focus-on/technology-enhanced-learning/lecture-recording [Accessed 30 April 2023]
QAA. 2020. Guidance on alternative student submissions in QAA reviews [Online] Available at: https://www.qaa.ac.uk/docs/qaa/guidance/guidance-on-alternative-student-submissions-in-qaa-reviews.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2023]
Rinfret, S.R. and Forster, E. 2023. FlipGrid: Re-imagining online discussion forums for the public administration classroom. Journal of public affairs education: J-PAE. 29(1), pp.92–106.
Sebach, A.M. 2022. Exploring the Experiences of Doctor of Nursing Practice Students’ Use of Flipgrid to Create a Community of Inquiry in a Predominantly Online Program. Nursing education perspectives. 43(6), pp.E121–E123.
Shao, S.P. 1995. Project DIANE is a virtual community net. Communications news (Geneva, Ill.). 33(2), p.12.
Smith, J. et al. (2022) ‘Assessing the efficacy of video telestration in aiding memory recall among elite professional football players’, Sports Innovation Journal, 3, pp. 61–81. doi:10.18060/26317.
Snelson, C. and Hsu, Y.-C. 2020. Educational 360-Degree Videos in Virtual Reality: a Scoping Review of the Emerging Research. TechTrends. 64(3), pp.404–412.
Stoszkowski, J. and Collins, D. 2022. A realist evaluation of the use of Flipgrid to facilitate collaborative online learning and reflection in sport coaching. Sport, education and society. 27(8), pp.906–921.
Taylor, C.D., Shawver, S.K. and Lange, E.J. 2022. Strategies for Utilizing Flipgrid in PETE Curricula. Journal of physical education, recreation & dance. 93(3), pp.32–36.
Venkatesh, V. et al. 2003. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Towards a Unified View. MIS Quarterly. 27(3),pp.425–478. [Online] Available at https://www.jstor.org/stable/30036540?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents [Accessed: 15 May 2023]
Venkatesh, v. et al. 2012. Consumer acceptance and use of information technology: Extending the unified theory of acceptance and use of technology. MIS Quarterly Vol. 36 No. 1 pp. 157-178. [Online} Available at: https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6256/0e2001480fd1f22558ce4d34ac93776af3e6.pdf [Accessed 30 April 2023]
Violante, M.G., Vezzetti, E. and Piazzolla, P. 2019. Interactive virtual technologies in engineering education: Why not 360° videos? International journal on interactive design and manufacturing. 13(2), pp.729–742.
Vygotsky, L.S. and Cole, M. 1978. Mind in society: the development of higher psychological processes (M. Cole, ed.). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). 2017. [Online]. Available from: https://www.w3.org/WAI/APA/task-forces/research-questions/wiki/Accessibility_of_Virtual_Reality [Accessed 20 February 2023].
Xu, M., Li, C., Zhang, S. and Callet, P.L. 2020. State-of-the-Art in 360° Video/Image Processing: Perception, Assessment and Compression. IEEE journal of selected topics in signal processing. 14(1), pp.5–26.