skip to main content
10.1145/3411763.3451725acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Guideline-Based Evaluation and Design Opportunities for Mobile Video-based Learning

Published:08 May 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Learners consume video-based learning content on various mobile devices due to their mobility and accessibility. However, most video-based learning content is originally designed for desktop without consideration of constraints in mobile learning environments. We focus on readability and visibility problems caused by visual design elements such as text and images on varying screen sizes. To reveal design issues of current content, we examined mobile learning adequacy of content with 681 video frames from 108 video lectures. The content analysis revealed a distribution and guideline compliance rate of visual design elements. We also conducted semi-structured interviews with six video production engineers to investigate current practices and challenges in content design for mobile devices. Based on the interview results, we present a prototype that supports a guideline-based design of video learning content. Our findings can inform engineers and design tool makers on the challenges of editing mobile video-based learning content for accessible and adaptive design across devices.

References

  1. AfiliasTechnologiesLimited. 2019 (accessed September 10, 2020). Viewport, resolution, diagonal screen size and DPI for the most popular smartphones. https://deviceatlas.com/blog/viewport-resolution-diagonal-screen-size-and-dpi-most-popular-smartphonesGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Ahmed Alamri, Zhongtian Sun, Alexandra I Cristea, Gautham Senthilnathan, Lei Shi, and Craig Stewart. 2020. Is MOOC Learning Different for Dropouts? A Visually-Driven, Multi-granularity Explanatory ML Approach. In International Conference on Intelligent Tutoring Systems. Springer, 353–363.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Michael Alley and Kathryn A Neeley. 2005. Rethinking the design of presentation slides: A case for sentence headlines and visual evidence. Technical communication 52, 4 (2005), 417–426.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Mohamed Ally. 2005. Using learning theories to design instruction for mobile learning devices. Mobile learning anytime everywhere(2005), 5–8.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gerald J Alred, Charles T Brusaw, and E Oliu Walter. [n.d.]. Handbook of Technical Writing. Bedford/St. Martins, Boston, MA, USA, 2006. paperback), 0-312-35267-0 (hardcover). xxiv([n. d.]).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Shaun Anderson. 2020 (accessed September 10, 2020). What Are The Best Screen Sizes For Responsive Web Design?https://www.hobo-web.co.uk/best-screen-size/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. H Russell Bernard and Harvey Russell Bernard. 2013. Social research methods: Qualitative and quantitative approaches. Sage.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative research in psychology 3, 2 (2006), 77–101.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. Sabra Brock and Yogini Joglekar. 2011. Empowering PowerPoint: Slides and teaching effectiveness. Interdisciplinary Journal of Information, Knowledge, and Management 6, 1(2011), 85–94.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Kirsten R Butcher. 2014. The multimedia principle. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning 2 (2014), 174–205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Juan Casares, A Chris Long, Brad A Myers, Rishi Bhatnagar, Scott M Stevens, Laura Dabbish, Dan Yocum, and Albert Corbett. 2002. Simplifying video editing using metadata. In Proceedings of the 4th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. 157–166.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Terence Cavanaugh and Catherine Cavanaugh. 2000. Interactive PowerPoint for teachers and students. In Society for Information Technology & Teacher Education International Conference. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 496–499.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dipesh Chand and Hasan Ogul. 2020. Content-Based Search in Lecture Video: A Systematic Literature Review. In 2020 3rd International Conference on Information and Computer Technologies (ICICT). IEEE, 169–176.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. H Christian Davidson and Richard H Wiggins. 2003. Radiology teaching presentation tools. In Seminars in ultrasound, CT, and MR, Vol. 24. 420–427.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Inge De Waard, Apostolos Koutropoulos, Rebecca J Hogue, Sean C Abajian, Nilgün Özdamar Keskin, C Osvaldo Rodriguez, and Michael Sean Gallagher. 2012. Merging MOOC and mLearning for increased learner interactions. International Journal of Mobile and Blended Learning (IJMBL) 4, 4(2012), 34–46.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Inge DeWaard, Sean Abajian, Michael Sean Gallagher, Rebecca Hogue, Nilgün Keskin, Apostolos Koutropoulos, and Osvaldo C Rodriguez. 2011. Using mLearning and MOOCs to understand chaos, emergence, and complexity in education. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning 12, 7(2011), 94–115.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. Inge deWaard, Apostolos Koutropoulos, N Keskin, Sean C Abajian, Rebecca Hogue, C Osvaldo Rodriguez, and Michael Sean Gallagher. 2011. Exploring the MOOC format as a pedagogical approach for mLearning. In Proceedings of 10th World Conference on Mobile and Contextual Learning. 138–145.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Francis T Durso, Vlad L Pop, John S Burnett, and Eric J Stearman. 2011. Evidence-based human factors guidelines for PowerPoint presentations. Ergonomics in Design 19, 3 (2011), 4–8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. GoogleLLC. 2020 (accessed September 10, 2020). The type system (Material Design). https://material.io/design/typography/the-type-system.html#type-scaleGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Philip J Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin. 2014. How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Proceedings of the first ACM conference on Learning@ scale conference. 41–50.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Vered Halamish. 2018. Can very small font size enhance memory?Memory & cognition 46, 6 (2018), 979–993.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jane Hoffswell, Wilmot Li, and Zhicheng Liu. 2020. Techniques for Flexible Responsive Visualization Design. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1–13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. J Holzl. 1997. Twelve tips for effective PowerPoint presentations for the technologically challenged. Medical Teacher 19, 3 (1997), 175–179.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Xian-Sheng Hua, Zengzhi Wang, and Shipeng Li. 2005. LazyCut: content-aware template-based video authoring. In Proceedings of the 13th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia. 792–793.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Moula Husain, SM Meena, Akash K Sabarad, Harish Hebballi, Shiddu M Nagaralli, and Sonal Shetty. 2015. Counting occurrences of textual words in lecture video frames using apache hadoop framework. In 2015 IEEE International Advance Computing Conference (IACC). IEEE, 1144–1147.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. Apple Inc.2020 (accessed September 10, 2020). Typography (Human Interface Guidelines). https://developer.apple.com/design/human-interface-guidelines/ios/visual-design/typography/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. Nabil Issa, Mary Schuller, Susan Santacaterina, Michael Shapiro, Edward Wang, Richard E Mayer, and Debra A DaRosa. 2011. Applying multimedia design principles enhances learning in medical education. Medical education 45, 8 (2011), 818–826.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Hyeungshik Jung, Hijung Valentina Shin, and Juho Kim. 2018. DynamicSlide: Exploring the Design Space of Reference-based Interaction Techniques for Slide-based Lecture Videos. In Proceedings of the 2018 Workshop on Multimedia for Accessible Human Computer Interface. 33–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Natasha Larocque, Stephanie Kenny, and Matthew DF McInnes. 2015. Medical school radiology lectures: what are determinants of lecture satisfaction?American Journal of Roentgenology 204, 5 (2015), 913–918.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Hyunjeong Lee, Jan L Plass, and Bruce D Homer. 2006. Optimizing cognitive load for learning from computer-based science simulations.Journal of educational psychology 98, 4 (2006), 902.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Petra J Lewis. 2016. Brain friendly teaching—reducing learner’s cognitive load. Academic radiology 23, 7 (2016), 877–880.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. A Chris Long, Brad Myers, Juan Casares, Scott Stevens, and Albert Corbett. 2004. Video Editing Using Lenses and Semantic Zooming. (2004).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Richard Mayer and Richard E Mayer. 2005. The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. Cambridge university press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Richard E Mayer, Julie Heiser, and Steve Lonn. 2001. Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: When presenting more material results in less understanding.Journal of educational psychology 93, 1 (2001), 187.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  35. Ozlem Ozan and Yasin Ozarslan. 2016. Video lecture watching behaviors of learners in online courses. Educational Media International 53, 1 (2016), 27–41.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Lesley Pugsley. 2010. How To... Design an effective power point presentation. Education for Primary Care 21, 1 (2010), 51–53.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. PythonSoftwareFoundation. 2020 (accessed September 10, 2020). pytesseract 0.3.6. https://pypi.org/project/pytesseract/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Matthew G Rhodes and Alan D Castel. 2008. Memory predictions are influenced by perceptual information: evidence for metacognitive illusions.Journal of experimental psychology: General 137, 4 (2008), 615.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Anna C Seale, Maryirene Ibeto, Josie Gallo, Olivier le Polain de Waroux, Judith R Glynn, and Jenny Fogarty. 2020. Learning from each other in the COVID-19 pandemic. Wellcome Open Research 5, 105 (2020), 105.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  40. Dhawal Shah. 2019 (accessed September 10, 2020). Class Central’s Top 100 MOOCs of All Time (2019 edition). https://www.classcentral.com/report/top-moocs-2019-edition/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Dom Shibli. 2019. Using Cognitive Load Theory to improve the use of slideshow presentations and support a more efficient learning process. Blended Learning in Practice(2019), 50.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  42. Karen Stein. 2006. The dos and don’ts of PowerPoint presentations. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 106, 11(2006), 1745–1748.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  43. John Sweller. 1994. Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction 4, 4 (1994), 295–312.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. John Sweller, Jeroen JG Van Merrienboer, and Fred GWC Paas. 1998. Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review 10, 3 (1998), 251–296.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  45. Haojin Yang, Maria Siebert, Patrick Luhne, Harald Sack, and Christoph Meinel. 2011. Automatic lecture video indexing using video OCR technology. In 2011 IEEE International Symposium on Multimedia. IEEE, 111–116.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Haojin Yang, Maria Siebert, Patrick Luhne, Harald Sack, and Christoph Meinel. 2011. Lecture video indexing and analysis using video ocr technology. In 2011 Seventh International Conference on Signal Image Technology & Internet-Based Systems. IEEE, 54–61.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. Baoquan Zhao, Songhua Xu, Shujin Lin, Ruomei Wang, and Xiaonan Luo. 2019. A New Visual Interface for Searching and Navigating Slide-Based Lecture Videos. In 2019 IEEE International Conference on Multimedia and Expo (ICME). IEEE, 928–933.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  48. Ting Zhou, Sufang Huang, Jing Cheng, and Yaru Xiao. 2020. The Distance Teaching Practice of Combined Mode of Massive Open Online Course Micro-Video for Interns in Emergency Department During the COVID-19 Epidemic Period. Telemedicine and e-Health 26, 5 (2020), 584–588.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Guideline-Based Evaluation and Design Opportunities for Mobile Video-based Learning
        Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI EA '21: Extended Abstracts of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          May 2021
          2965 pages
          ISBN:9781450380959
          DOI:10.1145/3411763

          Copyright © 2021 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 8 May 2021

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • poster
          • Research
          • Refereed limited

          Acceptance Rates

          Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader

        HTML Format

        View this article in HTML Format .

        View HTML Format