Videos (Pre-Reading)¶

Strategy · All strategies
Evidence · 4 claims (3 for, 1 mixed) · 10 studies (5 quant-synthesis, 3 causal, 1 review, 1 theoretical), q2–q4 · 5 of 10 report an effect size

Description¶

A short video relating to the topic of an upcoming reading is shown before learners read the text. Discussion questions are prepared in advance based on the video content; after viewing, learners discuss what they saw with a partner. The video functions as an advance organizer and shared reference experience that gives the subsequent reading a familiar conceptual frame.

Design Implications¶

Video pre-reading works because it activates relevant prior knowledge before learners encounter new text, making incoming information easier to integrate Activation of prior knowledge improves learning outcomes. [+M]. It also serves as an advance organizer — a bridging structure that anchors unfamiliar content to something already seen Advance organizers improve learning. [+M]. The design must respect multimedia principles: keep the video short, segment it, and pair narration with relevant imagery rather than decorative visuals, or the medium itself becomes a source of extraneous load Cognitive overload degrades learning. [~M]. The peer discussion afterward converts passive viewing into retrieval and elaboration, which is where much of the benefit accrues Active learning improves exam performance. [+S].

Context¶

Requirements¶

• A short (ideally under 6 minutes), high-quality video directly relevant to the reading's central concepts
• Pre-prepared discussion questions that target the concepts the reading will develop, not surface details of the video
• A structured pairing or small-group format so every learner verbalizes ideas before reading (Class Discussion, Peer Discussion)

Constraints¶

• Long or poorly segmented videos impose extraneous cognitive load and reduce what learners retain for the reading Cognitive overload degrades learning. [-M]
• Videos that entertain without connecting to the reading's core ideas create a shared experience but no conceptual bridge — discussion questions must force the connection
• Learners may treat the video as a substitute for the reading ("I already saw this"), so the discussion should surface gaps the video does not answer
• Seductive details — vivid but irrelevant footage — draw attention away from key content, especially for novices [~M]

Implementation Variability¶

• Silent viewing with guiding questions vs. viewing with embedded pauses for prediction ("What do you think happens next? How does this relate to what we'll read?")
• Video before reading vs. video after a first skim — the latter supports more targeted viewing but loses some advance-organizer benefit
• Subtitled or captioned video supports second-language learners and reinforces terminology they will meet in the text
• Learners can generate their own discussion questions from the video, shifting the activity toward Questioning

Target Learners¶

• Novices with little background knowledge of the topic, who benefit most from an accessible, low-density introduction before dense text Activation of prior knowledge improves learning outcomes. [+M]
• Second-language and struggling readers, for whom visual context reduces the vocabulary and inference burden of the reading
• Less necessary for learners with strong domain knowledge, for whom the video may be redundant and slow [~W]

Target Learning Goals¶

• Prior knowledge activation and schema building before text-based learning
• Shared context and vocabulary so class discussion of the reading starts from common ground
• Engagement and motivation to read — the video creates a curiosity gap the text resolves

Instructions¶

1. Select or produce a short video (under ~6 minutes) that presents the reading's central concepts concretely; segment it if longer (Chunking)
2. Write 2–4 discussion questions that require learners to connect video content to what they will read, not merely recall what they saw
3. Show the video, keeping captions on where terminology matters (Attention)
4. Have learners discuss the questions with a partner, verbalizing predictions and questions they hope the reading will answer (Peer Discussion)
5. Briefly collect one prediction or question per pair to frame the reading task, then assign the reading (Advance Organizers)

Related Strategies¶

• Activating Prior Knowledge — the general principle this strategy enacts through video
• Anticipation Guides — a text-based alternative that similarly primes predictions before reading
• Think-Pair-Share — the discussion structure most often paired with this strategy

Examples¶

• Before reading an article on rainforest ecology, a short documentary segment on biodiversity and deforestation is shown; pairs discuss "What does the video suggest about why deforestation spreads?" before reading a text that develops the economic and policy dimensions the video omitted.
• In a history unit, a 4-minute archival footage clip precedes a primary-source reading; discussion questions ask students to identify what the footage cannot show, motivating close reading of the source.
• Science courses using the 5E Learning Cycle often place a short phenomenon video in the Engage phase, followed by pair discussion, before the Explain phase's reading.

Key Sources¶

• Ausubel, D. P. (1960). The use of advance organizers in the learning and retention of meaningful verbal material. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51(5), 267–272. doi:10.1037/h0046669
• Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2016). E-Learning and the Science of Instruction (4th ed.). Wiley. doi:10.1002/9781119239086
• Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511811678
• Guo, P. J., Kim, J., & Rubin, R. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale (L@S '14), 41–50. doi:10.1145/2556325.2566239