Our main findings are that shorter videos are much more en-gaging, that informal talking-head videos are more engaging,that Khan-style tablet drawings are more engaging, that evenhigh-quality pre-recorded classroom lectures might not makefor engaging online videos, and that students engage differ-ently with lecture and tutorial videos.
Engagement measured as minutes watched and problems attempted after video
Our script extracted 6.9 million total video watching sessionsacross four courses during the time period when they wereinitially offered in Fall 2012 (see Table 2)
Video length was by far the most significant indicator of en-gagement.
shows that median engagement time is at most6 minutes, regardless of total video length. The bottom box-plot (engagement times normalized to video length) showsthat students often make it less than halfway through videoslonger than 9 minutes.
For the five length buck-ets in Figure 2, we computed the percentage of video watch-ing sessions followed by a problem attempt: The percentageswere 56%, 48%, 43%, 41%, and 31%, respectively
Even at the highest levels on 52% attempted a problem on short videos. This is really low. Wonder what this means for including quizzes and things in videos
They found taking heads to be more engaging, but Mayer has always found this has not made a difference in learning
Resolution had no effect. Maybe encourage shooting in lower resolution to save post production time and to consider data rates
In tutorials "Khan type" screencast had more engagement. What does this mean for video walkthrough tutorials for writing? Was this a novelty finding from 2012? Still relevant todat?
Pre-planning improves engagement...in the no duh finding category