SUMMARY

Instructional videos are increasingly used in education but the learning effectiveness of those videos is
not yet optimal. To achieve optimal learning effectiveness, it is important that the learner engages in
adequate information processing in order to recall the content. Next to the cognitive processes,
motivation of the learner has an effect on the retrieval of memory. A review (summary) could be a
possible solution to make sure that the learner engages in the right information processing. In
addition, it is expected that the review enhances self-efficacy and compensates for little self-regulated
learning skills. This research aims to investigate the effects of reviews in an instructional conceptual
video on primary school (i.e. grade 8-9) children’s retention and motivation.
The expected cognitive and motivational effects of reviews will be investigated using an
experimental design and by means of interviews. Within the timeframe, knowledge tests, self-efficacy
tests and self-regulated learning tests are administered. The control group will receive an instructional
video without the presence of a review, whereas the experimental group will receive an instructional
video with reviews included. After the experiment, interviews are held. Subsequently, ANOVAs will
be used to analyse the effect of the different conditions on video engagement, motivation and
retention. The interviews will be analysed using a hybrid coding scheme. In order to provide in depth
recommendations for design based principles, cognitive and motivational effects are taken into
account. Furthermore, this research will shed light on the previous proven effectiveness of summaries
in text, with regard to videos.

Key words: instructional video, reviews, retention, motivation, self-regulated learning

 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT
The use of videos in education has increased massively in recent years (de Koning,
Hoogerheide & Boucheix, 2018). Next to the use of instructional videos in informal
settings, instructional videos are increasingly being used in formal settings. It is important that the
learner engages in adequate information processing while watching the video (Schwan, 2013).
Therefore, videos have to be designed in an informed and responsible way and are ideally based on
research-based design principles. When instructional videos are aligned with how the human mind
works, better learning outcomes are expected (Mayer & Mayer, 2015).
However, the learning effectiveness of instructional videos is not yet optimal. Cabi (2018)
compared studies investigating the effectiveness of videos watched at home. The author concluded
that most research suggests that there is a positive impact on students’ learning outcomes, but three
studies revealed no positive effects on students’ learning outcomes. An explanation could be that
students tend to passively listen to videos, instead of engaging in active, constructive or interactive
ways of processing (e.g. Chi, 2011). Engaging in higher levels of cognitive processing has a positive
impact on students’ learning outcomes and has the potential to increase recall (Smallhorn, 2017).
Moreover, value and arousal (affect) also have an effect on the retrieval of declarative memory
(Juvina, Larue & Hough, 2018). van der Meij and van der Meij (2016b) found a positive relationship
between the presence of summaries in procedural knowledge videos and higher self-efficacy which is
a concept underlying affect.
It is expected that summaries facilitate learning from video because it is proven that the
organisation of text is a well-known strategy to facilitate learning through structuring the information
in a clear way (Gabriel & Mayzer, 1963; Lorch, 1989). Mayer & Mayer (2015) emphasize that when a
method (e.g. summary) is proven effective in one medium (e.g. text), it will be likely that it will be
effective in another similar medium (e.g. video).
In this research, summaries are the medium and they could be seen as a scaffold that
facilitates the cognitive processes of storing and retrieving information. Moreover, summaries could
have a selective influence on memory through facilitating the recall of the most important points
(Lorch, 1989). In addition, it is hypothesized that when the learner does not use cognitive strategies
aimed at information processing, the summary could compensate for not using cognitive strategies.
Therefore, the goal of this research is to investigate the effects of summaries on learning
outcomes and motivation, among 8-9 graders in two primary schools in the Netherlands. The effects
of summaries on learning outcomes and motivation will be investigated in an experimental pretest-
posttest design. Logfiles are administered in order to gain insight in the play time. In addition,
perception of the effects of summaries in instructional video from the children themselves is
considered using interviews. The insights of this research will contribute to the development of
evidence-based design principles in instructional conceptual video aimed at primary school children.

1.2 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1.2.1. Summaries support knowledge development

A text summary conveys a recap to the reader. Summaries in text have already proven their
effectiveness for the recall of content (Hartley, Goldie & Steen, 1976; McLaughlin Cook, 1981;
Hartley & Trueman, 1982). Hartley & Trueman (1982) reviewed previous findings and indicate it is
most effective to place the summary at the end of a text instead of in the beginning or in the middle.
Woolfolk (2014) recommends using summaries in the middle or the end of the lesson.
Summaries can emphasize content, organization, or both. One type of summary states the
major text topics and their organization (Lorch, 1989). Another type of text summary conveys a recap
to the reader by abstracting the main ideas of the text (Hartley & Trueman, 1982; Lorch, 1989). The
goal is presenting the main ideas that are advanced in a text (Hartley & Trueman, 1982). However, it
also carries information about how the topics are organized.
It is not yet clear how exactly summaries aid memory, therefore some hypotheses are
discussed. First, providing an organization of the information could help the learner because the topic
structure provides a plan for retrieval of the information (Lorch, 1989). A coherent representation of
the information will facilitate memory for the presented topics. As a consequence, it will make
information about these topics more accessible in memory. Second, the summary could have a
selective influence on memory, so that the most important information is remembered. Third, a
summary could make the information more comprehensible than was presented in the text (Lorch,
1989).
Mayer & Mayer (2015) state when a certain medium has been proven effective and it is
similar to another medium, it will be likely that this method will be effective in the other medium too.
Therefore, the guidelines from text summaries should be taking in to account when summaries are
used in videos. The proven effects of summaries in text must now be tested with videos.

1.2.2. Effective review design

A review is a summary of the main points in a video (van der Meij & van der Meij, 2016a;
van der Meij & van der Meij, 2016b; Brar & van der Meij, 2017; van der Meij et al., 2018) which can
enhance retention and is hypothesized to increase the learners’ self-efficacy (van der Meij, 2017; van
der Meij et al., 2018). Brar & van der Meij (2017) discuss four benefits of reviews in more depth.
First, the summary can be helpful for learners with low summarization skills (Brar & van der Meij,
2017). Summarization skills are part of self-regulation skills, therefore self-regulation is taken into
account in this research (see 1.2.3.). Second, a review can serve as a frame of reference which can be
used as a learners’ self-constructed summary of a procedure. When the learner notices a discrepancy
this can result in replaying a section from the video. Third, a review can strengthen the learners
knowledge of the correct solution because the main events are presented. Last, a review offers the
learner a second chance to learn the presented content.
However, a review has to meet some specifications before it could have positive effects. First,
a review can be only beneficial when there is a fit between the content and the structure of what the
learner sees and what must be remembered (van der Meij & Van der Meij, 2016a). A review should be
designed in such a way that it helps the learner in remembering the content so that it can serve as a
guide for future use. A review accomplishes this through showing a condensed format of the presented
video and thereby showing a cognitive rehearsal of steps (van der Meij & Dunkel, 2019).
Second, reviews could be less effective when there is a preview included. In the study of van
der Meij et al., (2018) previews were included before the actual video and review. It is suggested to
not use previews because they could give the learners the false impression that the preview already
gives a comprehensive overview, which is the aim of the review.

1.2.3. Influence of motivation on learning outcomes

Learning outcomes are influenced by the motivation of students (Bembenutty & Karabenick,
2004). Many definitions can be given for the concept ‘motivation’. A commonly used definition is
that a student is driven to do something (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to the ‘self-determination
theory’, a distinction can be made between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is
seen as a motivational state that arises from personal interests (Wulf & Lewthwaite, 2016). Extrinsic
motivation on the other hand, arises from factors such as receiving recognition or a reward (Wulf &
Lewthwaite, 2016).
Self-efficacy. One essential part of motivation is self-efficacy. Self-efficacy is the extent to
which the learner believes he/she has enough knowledge and skills to perform a task in a particular
situation (Bandura, 1997). High self-efficacy is beneficial because this belief can positively affect the
learners’ persistence while watching the video and the engagement in future task involvement. It can
be stimulated through: 1) giving success experiences, 2) observing that someone else has success, 3)
giving support as a teacher, 4) the learners’ own response (for example, when you feel happy about
your prestation this facilitates your self-efficacy the next time) (Woolfolk, 2014).
The provision of support, in the form of the review, is hypothesized to be a cognitive tool
which will facilitate self-efficacy. van der Meij and van der Meij (2016b) found a higher increase in
self-efficacy in the review condition compared to the control condition. The rationale behind the effect
is that the review is a reminder for the learner what he/she has to know about the watched video. So,
when a review recapitulates the key points, it conveys the impression that the content is manageable
to learn.
Self-regulated learning. However, too much self-efficacy is not beneficial because the
learner must remain motivated and monitor him/herself. Monitoring is part of self-regulated learning
and it means that the learners works towards the moment he/she can learn independently (Woolfolk,
2004). A self-regulated learner adjusts his/her actions, ideas and feelings to achieve the imagined goal
and thereby direct his/her own learning process. Self-regulated learning is related to having a sense of
agency because the learner influences his/her learning by his/herself. For example, the learner decides
whether he/she is going to summarize a lesson.
Whether the learner can be labelled as a self-regulated learner depends on his/her use of the
following strategies: 1) cognitive strategies (for example, the learner has to know how to make a
summary), 2) metacognitive strategies, 3) management strategies and 4)motivation strategies (de Boer
et al., 2013). This study focuses on cognitive strategies because these are focused on learning
strategies aimed at information processing, remembering and integration of new information in
existing knowledge (Kostons, Donker & Opdenakker, 2014). Facilitating information processing is
also the aim of a review.
When the learner applies to above mentioned strategies, he/she has the self-regulation skills
required for independently watching and processing videos (Sun, Wu & Lee, 2017). Without self-
regulation skills it is likely that students will drop out or procrastinate when guidance is missing.
When there is a lack of guidance, students have to rely on self-monitoring and work independent on
the learning content (Sun et al., 2017). Therefore, it is hypothesized that when the learner does not
use cognitive strategies aimed at information processing, the review could compensate for not using
cognitive strategies.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND MODEL

The presented theoretical framework is the basis for the following research questions:

‘What is the effect of reviews in instructional conceptual video on primary school children’s (i.e.
grade 8-9) learning outcomes and motivation? ‘

1)To what extent does a review influence children’s immediate and delayed post-retention of
an instructional video?

2)To what extent does a review influence children’s video interaction, self-efficacy and self-
regulation?
 3) How do children experience reviews regarding learning and motivation?

1.4 SCIENTIFIC AND PRACTICAL RELEVANCE

This research is in different ways scientific and practical relevant. Researchers are just
beginning to identify what works and what does not work in designing instructional video. Therefore,
an important practical justification is that an increased understanding about the contribution of
reviews to retention has to be developed. This could lead to improvements in instructional design
principles for the development of instructional videos. To provide more in depth recommendations the
effects on motivation will be taken into account.
An important theoretical justification is that research on instructional conceptual video with
inclusion of reviews is not yet executed. Previous research focused on videos aimed at instructional
procedural knowledge (e.g. van der Meij & van der Meij, 2016). In addition, little research on
instructional video is performed with elementary school children. There are differences in working-
memory and long-term memory between 8-9 graders and adolescents (Woolfolk, 2004), so this could
lead to different insights about the effectiveness of reviews. The children will also be interviewed and
asked about their opinion about the review, which is a recommended by Brar and van der Meij (2017).
Linking qualitative and quantitative research results is a less common methodological approach but
has two benefits: 1) more knowledge is created about the researched phenomenon in comparison with
one approach and 2) findings can be validated from two perspectives (Flick, 2018).

2. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

2.1 RESEARCH DESIGN

In order to examine the effects of reviews on student outcomes a mixed methods design will
be used in this study. In the experimental design, motivation and retention are the dependent variables
and the presence of a review is the independent variable. Every condition includes 25 respondents
who are randomly assigned to the experimental or control condition. Respondents in the control group
will watch an instructional video without reviews and respondents in the experimental group will
watch the same instructional video with four reviews included. After the experiment, interviews will
be held in focus groups in order to examine respondents’ experience of the review. According to the
technology adoption model, children’s view concerning the usefulness can play an important role in
their willingness to engage in the video (Davis, 1989; Pan, Sivo, Gunter & Cornell, 2005; Taherdoost,
2018). The interviews will be structured because that will help in the comparison between participants
(Colton & Covert, 2007). Furthermore, the experiences from the children will give a richer context to
the experiment in order to give a more specific advice for practioners.
 Figure 1. Overview of the research design.

2.2. RESPONDENTS
Approximately 50 children in grade 8-9 of primary school will participate in this study. Based
on convenience sampling two classes of grade 8-9 of different schools are selected. To assure that
differences in children outcomes cannot be ascribed by factors of the school, children are randomly
assigned to condition, after stratification for classroom. When examining group differences, a
prerequisite for a relative high power is that there are approximately 20 children per condition
(Wilson Van Hoorhis & Morgan, 2007).

2.3 INSTRUMENTATION
A variety of instruments is used to collect relevant data in the different phases of this research.
In order to investigate the effect of reviews, four reviews will be developed and incorporated into an
existing instructional video. When the children are watching the videos, user logs will be used in
order to examine the children’s engagement with the video.
In addition, a couple of tests are used. First, knowledge tests are used in order to asses factual
knowledge. A pre-test, immediate domain knowledge test and delayed domain knowledge test are
administered. The assessed content will be aligned with the theory discussed in the instructional video
and the tests are developed on the basis of Bloom’s Taxonomy (Jones, Harland, Reid & Barlett, 2009).
Second, self-efficacy will be measured with the Initial Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (ISEQ) and the
Final Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (FSEQ) (Rheinberg, Vollmeyer & Burns, 2001). This test is
previously used in empirical studies who examined the effect of reviews in procedural knowledge
videos on self-efficacy (e.g. van der Meij et al. 2018; van der Meij, 2017). The survey is based on a 7-
point Likert scale and four questions are asked per timepoint. An example question from the ISEQ is:
‘How much do you know about this topic?’ Third, a self-regulation test (MSLQ) is administered in
order to determine the level of self-regulation (Duncan & McKeachie, 2005; Pintrich & Smith, 1993).
The learning-strategies scale (cognitive) will be used for this research because this examines the
concept of self-regulation targeted with this research. Ledoux, Meijer, Van der Veen and Breetvelt
(2013) examined the psychometric quality of the instrument and report that the MSLQ is a reliable
and valid instrument to use. The scale will be translated in Dutch and quality will be assessed prior to
using it. Also, all instruments will be pilot-tested to ensure that the instruments are appropriate to use.
For the qualitative part, an interview guide is developed to investigate children’s view
regarding the review. A grounded theory lens is used because sensitizing concepts from the theoretical
framework are used to develop the interview guide. While administering the interviews, story-
eliciting techniques will be used which is recommended in research with children (Flick, 2018).

2.4 PROCEDURE
Before data will be gathered, the ethics commission of the University of Twente will be asked
for permission. The participating children and their parents will be asked for consent, after they are
informed about the purpose of this study. The measurements and interviews will be conducted during
school hours at the primary school of the children. In the first meeting, three pre-tests are
administered, namely a prior knowledge test, a self-efficacy test and a self-regulation test. What
follows is the instructional video (with or without reviews present). While watching the instructional
video, user logs are administered. When children have watched the video, they fill in a domain
knowledge test, a self-efficacy test and a self-regulation test.
After 2 weeks, a second meeting will be planned. During this meeting, a delayed retention test
will be administered followed by focus groups. A focus group is chosen because more information can
be gathered in a short amount of time in comparison with one-to-one interviews (Flick, 2018). By
means of stratified random sampling, only children from the experimental group will be selected for
the interview because the aim of this research is to get insight in the experiences of children with
reviews. The interviews will be recorded and transcribed, so that the researcher can focus on the
interview itself. As discussed with the teacher, the children will be thanked for their participation in
this study through doing the ‘Freek Vonk Game’. When the teacher would like to know the outcomes
of the study, he/she could indicate to receive an infographic with important findings.

2.5 DATA ANALYSIS

First, the adjusted version of the MSLQ will be tested to ensure reliability. This will be
determined through using Cronbach’s alpha. A Cronbach’s alpha between 0.7 and 0.95 means that the
scale is reliable (Field, 2005). Then, a check on the random distribution of participants across
conditions will be performed (age, prior knowledge, self-efficacy, self-regulation). What follows is the
use of ANOVA’s to examine the effect of the review on retention and motivation. The tests will be two
tailed with alpha set at 0.05. For significant findings, Cohens’ d-statistic will be computed.
 For the qualitative part of this research, a hybrid coding scheme will be used. Some known
principles from the theoretical framework will be incorporated in the codes. However, to incorporate
the opinion of the children there were also be coded inductively. Codes are used to determine if there
are any patterns and whether these patterns differ between the experimental and control group.

3. PLANNING

3.1 TIMELINE

Table 1. Project timeline

3.2 OUTPUT
Table 1 provides a planning of this research project. The table shows when which activities
take place. The darkest colours indicate different parts of the project and the aimed week for delivery
or finishing and the lightest colours indicate sub activities of those parts. As indicated in the table, the
project starts in July and intends to be finished at the end of January 2020.
First, an analysis of the target group and theories regarding the to be developed product
(review) is made. Second, instruments are created and data can be collected. Third, the data is
analysed and will inform the answering of the research questions. Finally, everything can be brought
together in the product of the thesis.

REFERENCES

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, NJ: Freeman. Retrieved from:
https://www.worldcat.org/title/self-efficacy-the-exercise-of-control/oclc/36074515

Bembenutty, H., & Karabenick, S. A. (2004). Inherent association between academic delay of
gratification, future time perspective, and self-regulated learning. Educational Psychology
Review, 16(1), 35-57. doi: 10.1023/B:EDPR.0000012344.34008.5c

Brar, J., & van der Meij, H. (2017). Complex software training: Harnessing and optimizing
video instruction. Computers in Human Behavior, 70, 475-485.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.014

Chi, M. T. (2009), Active‐Constructive‐Interactive: A Conceptual Framework for Differentiating

Learning Activities. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1(1), 73-105. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-
8765.2008.01005.x

Cabi, E. (2018). The Impact of the Flipped Classroom Model on Students' Academic
Achievement. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 19(3).
doi: 10.19173/irrodl.v19i3.3482

Colton, D., & Covert, R. W. (2007). Designing and constructing instruments for social research and
evaluation: John Wiley & Sons.

Davis, F. (1989). Perceived Usefulness, Perceived Ease of Use, and User Acceptance of Information
Technology. MIS Quarterly,13(3), 319-340. doi:10.2307/249008

De Boer, H., Donker-Bergstra, A. S., Kostons, D. D. N. M., Korpershoek, H., & van der Werf, M. P.
(2013). Effective strategies for self-regulated learning: A meta-analysis. Groningen, NL:
GION/RUG. Retrieved from:
https://www.nro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/PROO_Effective+strategies+for+self-
regulated+learning.pdf
De Koning, B. B., Hoogerheide, V. V., & Boucheix, J. M. J. M. (2018). Developments and Trends in
Learning with Instructional Video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 395-398.
doi:.10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.055
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The Making of the Motivated Strategies for Learning
Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40(2), 117-128. doi: 10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6
Field, A.P. (2005). Discovering statistics using SPSS (2nd edition). London: Sage.

Flick, U. (2018). An introduction to qualitative research. London: Sage Publications Limited.

Gabriel, R. F., & Mayzner, M. S. (1963). Information ‘‘chunking’’ and short-term retention. Journal
of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 56, 161-164. doi:10.1037/h0043158

Hartley, J., Goldie, M., & Steen, L. (1979). The role and position of summaries: some issues and data.
Educational Review, 31(1), 59–65. doi:10.1080/0013191790310107

Jones, K. O., Harland, J., Reid, J. M., & Bartlett, R. (2009, October). Relationship between
examination questions and Bloom's taxonomy. In 2009 39th IEEE Frontiers in Education
Conference (pp. 1-6). IEEE.

Juvina, I., Larue, O., & Hough, A. (2018). Modeling valuation and core affect in a cognitive
architecture: The impact of valence and arousal on memory and decision-making. Cognitive
Systems Research, 48, 4–24. doi: 10.1016/j.cogsys.2017.06.002

De Koning, B. B., Hoogerheide, V. V., & Boucheix, J. M. J. M. (2018). Developments and Trends in
Learning with Instructional Video. Computers in Human Behavior, 89, 395-398.
doi:.10.1016/j.chb.2018.08.055

Kostons, D., Donker, A., & Opdenakker, M. (2014). Zelfgestuurd leren in de onderwijspraktijk. Een
kennisbasis voor effectieve strategie-instructie. Groningen: GION onderzoek/onderwijs.
Retrieved from: https://www.nro.nl/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Opdenakker_Zelfgestuurd-
leren-in-de-onderwijspraktijk.pdf

Hartley, J. & Trueman, M. (1982). The effects of summaries on the recall of information from prose:
five experimental studies. Human Learning, 1, 63-82. doi: 10.1007/BF02684519
Lam, S., Wong, B. P. H., Yang, H. & Lui Y. (2012). Understanding student engagement with a
contextual model, in Handbook of Research on Student Engagement, S. L. Christenson, A.
L. Reschly, C. Wylie, Eds., New York: Springer, pp. 403-419.

Ledoux, G., Meijer, J., Veen, I. van der, & Breetvelt, I. (2013). Meetinstrumenten voor sociale
competenties, metacognitie en advanced skills. Een inventarisatie. Amsterdam: Kohnstamm
Instituut. (Rapport 900).

Leman, P., Bremner, A., Gauvain. M., & Parke, R. (2012). Developmental Psychology. Mcgraw-Hill
Education: New York.

Lorch, R. F. (1989). Text-signaling devices and their effects on reading and memory
processes. Educational Psychology Review, 1(3), 209-234. doi: 10.1007/BF01320135

Mayer, R., & Mayer, R. E. (Eds.). (2015). The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning. New
York, NY, US: Cambridge university press

McLaughlin Cook, N. (1981) Summaries: further issues and data, Educational Review, 33:3, 215-
222. doi: 10.1080/0013191810330305

Van der Meij, H., & van der Meij, J. (2016a). The effects of reviews in video tutorials. Journal of
Computer Assisted Learning, 32(4), 332-344. doi: 10.1111/jcal.12136

Van der Meij, H., & van der Meij, J. (2016b). Demonstration-based training (DBT) in the design of a
video tutorial for software training. Instructional Science, 44(6), 527-542. doi:
10.1007/s11251-016-9394-9

Van der Meij, H. (2017). Reviews in instructional video. Computers & Education, 114, 164-174. doi:
10.1016/j.compedu.2017.07.002

Van der Meij, H., Van der Meij, J., Voerman, T., & Duipmans, E. (2018). Supporting motivation, task
performance and retention in video tutorials for software training. Educational Technology
Research and Development, 66(3), 597-614. doi: 10.1007/s11423-017-9560-z

Van der Meij, M. & Dunkel, P. (2019). Effects of a review and practice in video-based statistics.
Article in preparation.
Pan, C.C. (Sam), Sivo, S., Gunter, G., & Cornell, R. (2005). Students’ Perceived Ease of Use of an
eLearning Management System: An Exogenous or Endogenous Variable? Journal of
Educational Computing Research, 33(3), 285–307. Retrieved from
http://search.ebscohost.com.ezproxy2.utwente.nl/login.aspx?
direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ739141&site=ehost-live

Pintrich, P. R., & Smith, D. A. F. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the motivated strategies
for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and psychological measurement : a
quarterly journal devoted to the development and application of measures of individual
differences, 53(3), 801-813. doi: 10.1177/0013164493053003024

Rheinberg, F., Vollmeyer, R., & Burns, B. D. (2001). QCM: A questionnaire to assess current
motivation in learning situations. Diagnostica, 47(2), 57-66. doi:10.1026//0012-1924.47.2.57

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-87. doi:
10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Schwan, S. (2013). The art of simplifying events. In A. P. Shimamura (Ed.). Psychocinematics.

Exploring Cognition at Movies (pp. 214–226). New-York: Oxford University Press. doi:
10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199862139.003.0011

Smallhorn, M. (2017). The flipped classroom: A learning model to increase student engagement not
academic achievement. Student Success, 8(2), 43-53. doi: 10.5204/ssj.v8i2.381

Sun, J. C. Y., Wu, Y. T., & Lee, W. I. (2017). The effect of the flipped classroom approach to
OpenCourseWare instruction on students’ self‐regulation. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 48(3), 713-729. doi: 10.1111/bjet.12444

Taherdoost, H. (2018). A review of technology acceptance and adoption models and

theories. Procedia Manufacturing, 22, 960-967. doi: 10.1016/j.promfg.2018.03.137

Wilson Van Voorhis, C. R., & Morgan, B. L. (2007). Understanding power and rules of thumb for
determining sample sizes. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology, 3(2), 43-50. doi:
10.20982/tqmp.03.2.p043
Woolfolk, A., Perry, N. E., & Winne, P. H. (2004). Educational psychology. Toronto: Allyn and
Bacon.

Wulf, G., & Lewthwaite, R. (2016). Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and
attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning. Psychonomic Bulletin &
Review, 23(5), 1382-1414. doi:10.3758/s13423-015-0999-9