skip to main content
10.1145/3282353.3282354acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

The Effect of Content-Type and Video Adaptation on Information Assimilation

Published:19 November 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

Video content is increasingly used in education. At the same time, students are using mobile devices to access educational content or watched video clips which have an informative purpose. Video content, when being accessed on mobile devices, is often adapted to meet the network or mobile device characteristics. The adaptation can not only affect the user experience, but also the capability to assimilate information from the video clips. This research explores how different content types affect the information assimilation when they are adapted. We organised an experimental study considering different quality levels and four video content types: a mini-lecture, a demonstration, an interview and a scenario. We also explore how video quality is affected by the proposed content types.

References

  1. 2018. iTunesU. (2018). https://itunesu.itunes.apple.com/ Accessed: 2018-07-30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2018. MediaCoder - The Universal Audio/Video Transcoder. (2018). http://www.mediacoderhq.com/ Accessed: 2018-07-31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 2018. YouTube Education. (2018). https://www.youtube.com/edu Accessed: 2018-07-30.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Donald T Campbell and Julian C Stanley. 2015. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Ravenio Books.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Gary Charness, Uri Gneezy, and Michael A Kuhn. 2012. Experimental methods: Between-subject and within-subject design. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 81, 1 (2012), 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. Jiasi Chen, Amitabha Ghosh, Josphat Magutt, and Mung Chiang. 2012. QAVA: quota aware video adaptation. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on Emerging networking experiments and technologies. ACM, 121--132. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Peter J Fadde. 2008. Producing video learning objects for e-learning. eLearn Magazine 2008, 4 (2008), 1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Juan C Granda, José Quiroga, Daniel F Garcia, and Francisco J Suárez. 2011. Quality assessment of speech codecs in synchronous e-learning environments. In Multimedia and Expo (ICME), 2011 IEEE International Conference on. IEEE, 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. I-Chun Hung, Nian-Shing Chen, et al. 2018. Embodied interactive video lectures for improving learning comprehension and retention. Computers & Education 117 (2018), 116--131. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Gwo-Jen Hwang, Chiu-Lin Lai, and Siang-Yi Wang. 2015. Seamless flipped learning: a mobile technology-enhanced flipped classroom with effective learning strategies. Journal of Computers in Education 2, 4 (2015), 449--473.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. OF ITU. 2008. Series P: Telephone Transmission Quality, Telephone Installations, Local Line Networks - Subjective video quality assessment methods for multimedia applications. (2008). https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-P.910-200804-I/enGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Syed Asim Jalal, Nicholas Gibbins, David Millard, Bashir M Al-Hashimi, and Naif Radi Aljohani. 2014. Energy-Aware Streaming Multimedia Adaptation: An Educational Perspective. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia. ACM, 240--248. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Arghir-Nicolae Moldovan, Andreea Maria Molnar, and Cristina Hava Muntean. 2011. EcoLearn: Battery power friendly e-learning environment for mobile device users. (2011).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Andreea Molnar. 2014. On Better Understanding the Usage of Mobile Phones for Learning Purposes. Bulletin of the IEEE Technical Committee on Learning Technology 16, 2/3 (2014), 18.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Andreea Molnar. 2017. Content type and perceived multimedia quality in mobile learning. Multimedia Tools and Applications (2017), 1--15. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Andreea Molnar, Cristina Hava-Muntean, and Alexandra Cristea. 2009. Reusable quality of experience aware adaptation strategies for authoring adaptive e-learning. In AACE E-Learn-World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, & Higher Education. Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE), 3801--3810.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. Andreea Molnar and Cristina Hava Muntean. 2012. Consumer'risk attitude based personalisation for content delivery. In 2012 IEEE Consumer Communications and Networking Conference (CCNC). IEEE, 265--269.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Andreea Molnar and Cristina Hava Muntean. 2012. Mobile learning: An economic approach. In Intelligent and adaptive learning systems: technology enhanced support for learners and teachers. IGI Global, 311--326.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Andreea Molnar and Cristina Hava Muntean. 2015. Assessing learning achievements when reducing mobile video quality. Journal of Universal Computer Science 21, 7 (2015), 959--975.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Andreea Molnar, Jesus Virseda, and Vanessa Frias-Martinez. 2015. Insights from EducaMovil: Involving Teachers in Creating Educational Content for Mobile Learning Games. Journal of Interactive Learning Research 26, 2 (2015), 209--221.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. David Nield. 2016. Stop Netflix, YouTube And Spotify From Eating Up Your Mobile Data. (2016). https://www.gizmodo.com.au/2016/02/stop-netflix-youtube-and-spotify-from-eating-up-your-mobile-data/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. Jacqueline O'Flaherty and Craig Phillips. 2015. The use of flipped classrooms in higher education: A scoping review. The Internet and Higher Education 25 (2015), 85--95.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  23. Ilias O Pappas, Michail N Giannakos, and Patrick Mikalef. 2017. Investigating students' use and adoption of with-video assignments: lessons learnt for video-based open educational resources. Journal of Computing in Higher Education 29, 1 (2017), 160--177.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Z Pi, J Hong, and J Yang. 2017. Does instructor's image size in video lectures affect learning outcomes? Journal of Computer Assisted Learning (2017).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Oleksandra Poquet, Lisa Lim, Negin Mirriahi, and Shane Dawson. 2018. Video and learning: a systematic review (2007-2017). In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge. ACM, 151--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Dicky Rawendy, Yi Ying, Yulyani Arifin, and Kelly Rosalin. 2017. Design and Development Game Chinese Language Learning with Gamification and Using Mnemonic Method. Procedia Computer Science 116 (2017), 61--67. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. I Rec. 2016. P. 800.1, "Mean Opinion Score (MOS) Terminology ". International Telecommunication Union, Geneva (2016).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Joshua Scotton, Sabine Moebs, Jennifer McManis, and Alexandra I Cristea. 2010. Merging Strategies for Authoring QoE-based Adaptive Hypermedia. J. UCS 16, 19 (2010), 2756--2779.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  29. Ruimin Shen, Minjuan Wang, Wanping Gao, Daniel Novak, and Lin Tang. 2009. Mobile learning in a large blended computer science classroom: System function, pedagogies, and their impact on learning. Education, IEEE Transactions on 52, 4 (2009), 538--546. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Anna Trifonova and Marco Ronchetti. 2003. Where is mobile learning going?. In World Conference on E-Learning in Corporate, Government, Healthcare, and Higher Education, Vol. 2003. 1794--1801.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Liliana Vieira and Clara Coutinho. 2017. Urban Games: How to Increase the Motivation, Interaction and Perceived Learning of Students in the Schools. In Blended Learning: Concepts, Methodologies, Tools, and Applications. IGI Global, 1318--1334.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  32. Vishanth Weerakkody, Andreea Molnar, and Ramzi El-Haddadeh. 2014. Indicators for measuring the success of video usage in public services: the case of education. In Americas Conference on Information Systems.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Donald W Zimmerman. 1987. Comparative power of Student t test and MannWhitney U test for unequal sample sizes and variances. The Journal of Experimental Education 55, 3 (1987), 171--174.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Longhao Zou, Irina Tal, Alexandra Covaci, Eva Ibarrola, Gheorghita Ghinea, and Gabriel-Miro Muntean. 2017. Can Multisensorial Media Improve Learner Experience?. In Proceedings of the 8th ACM on Multimedia Systems Conference. ACM, 315--320. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. The Effect of Content-Type and Video Adaptation on Information Assimilation

        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 Other conferences
          MoMM2018: Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Advances in Mobile Computing and Multimedia
          November 2018
          157 pages

          Copyright © 2018 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: 19 November 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • short-paper
          • Research
          • Refereed limited
        • Article Metrics

          • Downloads (Last 12 months)3
          • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0

          Other Metrics

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader