When Video Improves Learning in Higher Education

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to review this work. Of course, the topic is current and of interest in the field of education. The authors are not really doing a review, but rather a critique of a review. This is of interest because it contributes to the scientific debate. However, it seems to me that the language used by the authors is manifestly too confrontational with Noetel's review. In my opinion, instead of confrontation, the authors should identify the points of divergence and look for the reasons that explain these divergences. This change of perspective will allow them to start from the assumption that the previous review is not incorrect, but probably only partial.

I have a few minor comments: the title, in my opinion, should be more descriptive, and the same first sentence should not be used in the abstract and in the Introduction.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

If any revision is necessary, it would be a minor revision in any case.

Author Response

To Whom It May Concern,
We are grateful for the comments provided by the reviewers and the editorial team.
We have worked to address these comments in our revised paper (attached) and detail these changes (also attached) in yellow highlight alongside the original comments and requests.
We welcome any additional questions and look forward to hearing back from you in due course.
Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors I believe that research to reveal the effects of video on the educational process depends on many facts, e.g. type of video (explanatory video, review, authentic videos, simulation videos, interactive videos), method of use and processing quality, location and students' experience with this method. The authors presented a different view and data processing on the given issue. Noetel himself states that even the research results may be subject to some experimental and publication bias, but they suggest that videos are unlikely to be harmful and usually improve student learning. Yes, it's too general. This review can be considered beneficial. She revealed some inconsistencies in Noetel's original study. However, I personally see it as different points of view. From the conclusions of the original study and from this overview in the review, it is clear that there is not and cannot be a unified opinion on the use of videos in teaching, because there are different videos and different students, just as the statement from 1998 may not be valid at this time. And I think the importance of videos for teaching and learning has changed a lot in the time of Covid. And it probably wasn't just learning that required a lower level of cognitive processing.  Are the authors planning their own more extensive research?   It would be interesting for readers to compare the use of video not only in different fields, but also in different countries. A stimulus for other researchers.    

 

Author Response

To Whom It May Concern,
We are grateful for the comments provided by the reviewers and the editorial team.
We have worked to address these comments in our revised paper (attached) and detail these changes (also attached) in yellow highlight alongside the original comments and requests.
We welcome any additional questions and look forward to hearing back from you in due course.
Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The decision to critique the original paper by Noetel et al. for not employing a theoretical lens is well-founded. Systematic reviews benefit significantly from a theoretical framework, as it guides the selection, evaluation, and interpretation of the included studies.

However, other justifications in the paper may not be as robust. For instance, comparing the findings of prior research such as Figlio, Rush & Yin (2013), Hansch et al. (2015), Furenes, Kucirkova & Bus (2021), and Poquet et al. (2018) to argue inconsistency in the field can be misleading. These studies vary in their methodologies and focus areas – some are not systematic reviews (Figlio, Rush & Yin, 2013; Hansch et al., 2015), others do not concentrate on higher education (Furenes, Kucirkova & Bus, 2021), and they use different databases and search parameters (Poquet et al., 2018). Such variations naturally lead to differing results.

To strengthen their argument, the authors should focus on comparing their findings with studies that are methodologically similar and within the same domain of higher education. This would provide a more accurate reflection of the consistency or inconsistency in the field.

Furthermore, using the ranking or prestige of the journal where a study is published as a justification for expecting higher quality in research methodology can be a bit contentious. While it is true that higher-ranked journals often have more rigorous peer-review processes, the quality and robustness of research should be assessed based on its own merits rather than the reputation of the journal. Every research paper, regardless of where it is published, can have potential shortcomings.

Although it is up to you, in my personal opinion, it would be more constructive to focus on the specific methodological and theoretical aspects of the study in question. This approach encourages a more objective and detailed critique, centered on the research practices and contributions of the study itself, rather than on external factors like journal reputation. I encourage this to ensure that the critique remains grounded in the content and quality of the research, providing a more meaningful and fair assessment. Otherwise, you should have submitted this review to the same journal.

The paper's suggestion that the impact of video on learning might differ based on the level of cognitive processing involved is a valid point. It acknowledges that video as a teaching tool may have varying effects depending on whether it targets lower or higher-level cognitive processes. However, the emphasis on mathematics, potentially influenced by the authors' research publications, might limit the scope of this argument. It would be beneficial to explore how this variation in the effectiveness of video-based learning applies across different academic disciplines. This broader approach would provide a more comprehensive understanding of the role of video in diverse educational contexts. Additionally, distinguishing between the use of video as a replacement for traditional teaching methods versus as a supplementary tool is crucial. This distinction can significantly influence the effectiveness of video in various learning scenarios and should be clearly addressed in the discussion. Other characteristics may be worth mentioning too, such as whether the video is used synchronously or asynchronously and the video type (e.g., narrated slide presentation, hand-drawn videos, picture-in-picture, etc.) See https://doi.org/10.58459/rptel.2023.18020

As a final remark, it is important to note that while the paper effectively critiques Noetel et al., the authors could further strengthen their central argument by emphasizing the importance of robust methodology in research. They could argue that employing rigorous and well-grounded research methods is crucial as it can lead to different, possibly more accurate, results. This emphasis would not only reinforce the critique of the Noetel et al. study but also contribute to the broader academic discussion on the importance of methodological integrity in educational research. This addition would provide a stronger foundation for their argument and enhance the overall impact of their paper.

Comments on the Quality of English Language

Minor editing of English language required.

Author Response

To Whom It May Concern,
We are grateful for the comments provided by the reviewers and the editorial team.
We have worked to address these comments in our revised paper (attached) and detail these changes (also attached) in yellow highlight alongside the original comments and requests.
We welcome any additional questions and look forward to hearing back from you in due course.
Kind regards

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have responded to my comments appropriately. I have no further objections.