Retrospective Focus Prompts Facilitate Learning from Video Tutorials for Technical Apprenticeship
Saved in:
| Title: | Retrospective Focus Prompts Facilitate Learning from Video Tutorials for Technical Apprenticeship |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Simon A. Schriek (ORCID |
| Source: | Applied Cognitive Psychology. 2025 39(2). |
| Availability: | Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 13 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Document Type: | Journal Articles Reports - Research |
| Descriptors: | Video Technology, Tutorial Programs, Apprenticeships, Prompting, Sequential Approach |
| DOI: | 10.1002/acp.70049 |
| ISSN: | 0888-4080 1099-0720 |
| Abstract: | Although the demand for video tutorials has risen recently in the field of technical apprenticeship, they can overtax learners, especially novices. Enhancing video tutorials with prompts is a potential support measure to ensure learners focus on the key aspects of learning content. However, open questions remain concerning the prompt type and presentation mode. We thus investigated the effectiveness of different prompt types (retrospective vs. anticipatory vs. unfocused vs. no prompt) and presentation modes (video vs. still shots and text) in a 4 × 2-factorial experiment (N = 205). We used original industrial video tutorials and assessed learning processes (e.g., prompt answers) and outcomes (e.g., knowledge about working steps). Results show that retrospective prompts are the most effective prompts for our novice sample. Furthermore, learning processes mediated the prompt effect on learning outcomes--regardless of the presentation mode. Our findings underscore the importance of retrospectively focusing on working steps when learning with video tutorials. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | EJ1468312 |
| Database: | ERIC |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwHMQR6bckAKlaaiJwn7cq-BAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDEvxWp6QRi9cPEuOuQIBEICBm7K2Uy2u2CgLd86eqn3850TFAoeOaTHG7IlonVMZIHNSddrOfR0PMJILrKLMysBtaH4XfEd1yr-7yiMINV14vx_0cYO-d1ds1VtnfozRYzMujTQLcHll05Wp7C_m4reNzeBk_PpmQtLhkE7Mi_VMkUtG1jiL96VnKwsdgZXSygI81iPLmfKHMYeI_1KamTeu3KvM4q5qjZCmyp4d Text: Availability: 1 Value: <anid>AN0184623595;bu801mar.25;2025Apr23.01:41;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0184623595-1">Retrospective Focus Prompts Facilitate Learning From Video Tutorials for Technical Apprenticeship </title> <p>Although the demand for video tutorials has risen recently in the field of technical apprenticeship, they can overtax learners, especially novices. Enhancing video tutorials with prompts is a potential support measure to ensure learners focus on the key aspects of learning content. However, open questions remain concerning the prompt type and presentation mode. We thus investigated the effectiveness of different prompt types (retrospective vs. anticipatory vs. unfocused vs. no prompt) and presentation modes (video vs. still shots and text) in a 4 × 2‐factorial experiment (N = 205). We used original industrial video tutorials and assessed learning processes (e.g., prompt answers) and outcomes (e.g., knowledge about working steps). Results show that retrospective prompts are the most effective prompts for our novice sample. Furthermore, learning processes mediated the prompt effect on learning outcomes—regardless of the presentation mode. Our findings underscore the importance of retrospectively focusing on working steps when learning with video tutorials.</p> <p>Keywords: focused processing; prompts; video tutorials</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-2">Introduction</hd> <p>One of the first tasks for apprentices in technical apprenticeship is learning how to operate an industrial drilling machine. Supervisors usually choose a hands‐on learning approach to impart practical skills by demonstrating the handling of an industrial machine and helping apprentices replicate the working steps. Whereas this approach is invaluable for acquiring skills, video tutorials are being increasingly used to provide additional support to apprentices before they perform a task on a machine.</p> <p>Video tutorials give learners step‐by‐step instructions in combination with visual demonstrations (van der Meij and van der Meij [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref1">69</reflink>]) while also providing more background information for learners (Chandra et al. [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref2">11</reflink>]). Such tutorials in general have grown in popularity and usage in recent years (Giannakos [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref3">20</reflink>]), and research demonstrates that they enhance student learning across various fields. Specifically, studies have revealed that video tutorials can enhance the learning of statistics (Lloyd and Robertson [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref4">40</reflink>]), business statistics (Lai et al. [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref5">39</reflink>]), public health biostatistics (Hund and Getrich [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref6">31</reflink>]), analytical thinking skills in physics (Amelia et al. [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref7">2</reflink>]), operations research (Sharkey and Nurre [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref8">63</reflink>]), and anesthesia training (Naicker et al. [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref9">49</reflink>]). Technical topics are no exception to this trend (Majgaard and Bertel [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref10">42</reflink>]). Video tutorials have several advantages that benefit novices especially (like first‐week apprentices or interns). First of all, step‐by‐step instructions need not be given directly at the machine, thus reducing external distractions such as other apprentices or workshop noise. Furthermore, these videos are permanently accessible for learners (Randhawa et al. [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref11">53</reflink>]), enabling self‐paced learning and repetitions depending on an individual's needs (Sudrajat and Wati [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref12">65</reflink>]). In addition, the imparting of declarative knowledge (i.e., knowledge about certain working steps) and the acquisition of procedural knowledge (i.e., learning how to carry out these working steps) are separated from one another when working with video tutorials. Skill acquisition follows a predefined path. The <emph>Adaptive Control of Thought (ACT*)</emph> theory describes declarative knowledge as the foundation upon which procedural knowledge can be built (Anderson [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref13">3</reflink>]). Although acquiring procedural knowledge is important to enable the transition from novice to expert in a technical working field, novices need to have the knowledge about working steps first before such a transition is possible. Video tutorials can provide learners with this knowledge. Below we clarify how different prompt types can be used to further enhance learning from video tutorials.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-3">Active and Focused Processing</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184623595-4">Active Processing</hd> <p>To build a foundation of declarative knowledge, learners must internalize key information (i.e., the working steps shown) provided in the video tutorials. Despite the aforementioned advantages of video tutorials, they can also create a passive learning situation (Erickson et al. [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref14">15</reflink>]). To overcome such passivity, learners need to interact with the learning content, which leads to active cognitive processes and ultimately, sustainable learning (Renkl and Atkinson [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref15">55</reflink>]). This <emph>active processing stance</emph> is captured in the <emph>Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning</emph> (Mayer [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref16">43</reflink>]). This theory assumes that three cognitive processes can be triggered by interacting with learning content: Selecting, Organizing, and Integrating. Learners may draw their attention to key aspects of the material (Selecting), organize them into a coherent structure (Organizing), and thereby create links to their prior knowledge (Integrating). One obstacle to active processing is that (novice) learners might be unable to identify these key aspects that they should pay attention to. As a consequence, such cognitive processes tend to focus not on key information presented in learning material but rather on the learning content as a whole (Renkl and Atkinson [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref17">55</reflink>]). Spending time and cognitive resources to process unnecessary information makes learning inefficient. In a worst‐case scenario, learners are given more information than they can process, and their inability to focus on the learning material's key aspects makes them focus exclusively on unnecessary information (<emph>malpriorization</emph>, e.g., Otieno et al. [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref18">50</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-5">Retrospective Focus Prompts, Anticipatory Focus Prompts, and Unfocused Note Prompts</hd> <p>Accordingly, the <emph>focused processing stance</emph> (Renkl and Atkinson [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref19">55</reflink>]) extends on the active processing stance: the aim of focused instructional support is to shift the focus of the aforementioned active processes toward central concepts and most relevant information (Berthold and Renkl [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref20">6</reflink>]). One way to do this is to provide learners with (more specific) focused processing prompts. The idea behind focused processing prompts is that learners are nudged toward the most relevant learning content criteria, and thus spend less effort assessing the relevance of learning material (Roelle et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref21">58</reflink>]). Focused processing prompts are known to increase both the quality and quantity of learning processes (Berthold et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref22">7</reflink>]). Such prompts are usually provided subsequent to learning material (retrospective focus prompts). When using video tutorials as a precursor to skill acquisition, the most relevant information is the imparted working steps rather than the additional background information provided in the videos (e.g., more advanced knowledge such as theoretical information on an industrial machine's function). This knowledge about working steps is the foundation for a subsequent acquisition of procedural knowledge (Anderson [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref23">3</reflink>]). A retrospective focus prompt (e.g., "What were the main working steps shown in the video tutorial?"; Schriek et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref24">62</reflink>]) would make learners focus on the central concept behind the different working steps imparted. Consequently, learners need not decide what to focus on because the prompt helps guide them to focus on the key aspects presented in the video tutorial (i.e., working steps).</p> <p>A drawback of such retrospective focus prompts is that learners tend to repeat pre‐formulated answers instead of generating their own answers (Roelle et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref25">58</reflink>]). Overall, a generative learning activity is what enhances learning (<emph>generative activity principle</emph>; Fiorella and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref26">18</reflink>]) and a greater generative learning activity should result in more learning success (Chi and Wylie [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref27">12</reflink>]). A potential way to evoke such a generative learning activity is to provide learners with focus prompts prior to learning, and encourage them to anticipate subsequent learning contents (anticipatory focus prompts; e.g., "Which working steps must be carried out next?"; Schriek et al. [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref28">62</reflink>]). Anticipation can be defined as a cognitive process through which an individual makes responses based on predictions, expectations, or beliefs about future events (Rosen [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref29">59</reflink>]). While anticipatory prompts can, just like retrospective focus prompts, shift learners' focus on central concepts, there are open questions as to how far such prompts can deepen the learning processes of novice learners. There are studies recommending such an instruction to anticipate as a powerful strategy to facilitate learning (e.g., Kuhara [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref30">37</reflink>]). Renkl ([<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref31">54</reflink>]) identified in his research various types of effective learners, one being those who try to anticipate subsequent solutions steps. These learners are capable of utilizing their prior knowledge for anticipation, which provides them with an appropriate working hypothesis for future events (Giannakos et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref32">21</reflink>]). Accordingly, research involving sport tasks has shown that experts recognize and make use of information before a task (i.e., anticipate) unlike novices who fail to do so (e.g., Loffing and Cañal‐Bruland [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref33">41</reflink>]; Müller et al. [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref34">47</reflink>]; Runswick et al. [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref35">61</reflink>]). Meier et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref36">45</reflink>]) demonstrated that combining a video tutorial with anticipatory prompts can be effective, but that this effectiveness depends on the learner's prior knowledge, being most effective for learners with a lot of it.</p> <p>A central issue in the investigation of instructional prompts as learning support (e.g., focused processing prompts) is to identify an appropriate control group. Previous studies have worked with <emph>unfocused note prompts</emph> as a control condition for various kinds of instructional prompts (e.g., Berthold et al. [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref37">7</reflink>]; Hefter and Berthold [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref38">27</reflink>]). Such unfocused prompts typically give learners the non‐mandatory option to take notes (e.g., "You can take notes here if you like"). It is possible that such an unspecific note prompt can trigger the deep processing of learning material, although prior knowledge again seems to be a prerequisite to do so (Bisra et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref39">8</reflink>]; Roelle et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref40">58</reflink>]). However, novice learners are known to lack prior knowledge and it is unclear whether novices benefit from anticipatory focus prompts and unfocused note prompts. It therefore seems feasible to make a direct comparison of retrospective and anticipatory focus prompts as well as unfocused note prompts in a sample of novice learners, as we did in this study. We implemented a control condition closer to a "real life" learning situation (i.e., learning with no instructional support). As our novice sample had little prior knowledge, we expected retrospective focus prompts to be most beneficial regarding learning processes and learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-6">Learning Processes as Mediator</hd> <p>Regardless of the type of prompt used to support learners, it is of key interest to analyze the processes that diverse instructional strategies evoke and how they relate to learning outcomes. One way to examine the mechanisms through which different prompts influence learning outcomes is by conducting mediation analyses. If prompts are utilized as the key strategy to enhance learning processes and ultimately learning outcomes, mediation analyses would reveal this relationship, and differences in learning outcomes should be mediated by differences in learning processes. Several studies worked with mediation analyses for investigating the effects of different prompt types (e.g., Berthold and Renkl [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref41">5</reflink>]; Hefter and Berthold [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref42">27</reflink>]; Hefter et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref43">28</reflink>]; Klein et al. [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref44">36</reflink>]; Kühl et al. [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref45">38</reflink>]; Roelle et al. [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref46">57</reflink>]; Wang and Adesope [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref47">70</reflink>]). For these reasons, we aimed in this study to investigate key learning processes as a potential mediator of a prompt effect on learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-7">Video Tutorials Versus Text‐Based Tutorials</hd> <p>Besides the question of the most suitable instructions for a technical tutorial for novices, there are still open questions regarding the right medium to present information to novice learners, and whether learning processes and learning outcomes might differ between video‐ and text‐based tutorials. Although it is intuitive to consider videos the most suitable presentation mode when trying to impart step‐by‐step instructions for operating an industrial machine, they are not necessarily the most effective and efficient medium to do so.</p> <p>In their study, Hefter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref48">30</reflink>]) discuss two reasons why videos can hinder learning: seductive details and transient information. First of all, video tutorials are derived from their natural environment and can include so‐called seductive details (Garner et al. [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref49">19</reflink>]). The seductive details effect describes the phenomenon involving the inclusion of interesting but irrelevant information that evokes detrimental processes like distraction, disruption, and diversion (Bender et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref50">4</reflink>]; Harp and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref51">23</reflink>]). Such processes hinder learning. Novices are most vulnerable to seductive details because they have too little prior knowledge to determine the relevance of information (Park et al. [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref52">52</reflink>]). In addition to seductive details, video tutorials have the drawback that all the imparted information is transient (<emph>transient information effect</emph>; Singh et al. [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref53">64</reflink>]). As a result, the information either disappears before it can be adequately processed or it needs to be stored in working memory, claiming important cognitive resources that are therefore no longer available to process further information. Given the limited capacity of working memory (Mayer [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref54">43</reflink>]) learning with video tutorials during technical apprenticeship is accompanied by the risk of cognitively overloading learners. One way to overcome this risk is to change the material's presentation mode. For novices in particular, a text‐based presentation of information rather than a video‐based presentation can be less complex and might overcome the challenge of cognitive overload (Kalyuga [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref55">34</reflink>]). However, giving learners instructional support will likely overcome such challenges of video tutorials. Providing learners with prompts to focus on key information should prevent them from concentrating on and processing seductive details (Roelle et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref56">58</reflink>]; Wang and Adesope [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref57">70</reflink>]). Accordingly, previous research revealed no differences in learning processes and learning outcomes between a video‐ and a text‐based presentation of learning material as long as learners deeply process the learning contents (Hefter et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref58">30</reflink>]). Additionally, Hefter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref59">30</reflink>]) demonstrated that learning from texts rather than videos takes less time, indicating text‐based tutorials are potentially more time‐efficient than video tutorials. For these practical reasons, the principle of simplicity can be considered, preferring a text‐based version of the tutorial when there are no significant differences in learning outcomes and learning processes between video‐ and text‐based tutorials. Hence, in this study, we also aimed to directly compare video and text‐based tutorials.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-8">Hypotheses</hd> <p>In the present study, we combined three multimedia tutorials on the topic of "How to operate an industrial drilling machine" with different prompt types. As discussed above, we wanted to test the efficacy of different prompt types on learning processes and learning outcomes.</p> <p>Regarding learning processes, the key information for a novice when learning with video tutorials is the working steps presented (van der Meij and van der Meij [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref60">69</reflink>]). Accordingly, the quantity of working steps processed in prompt answers (i.e., prompt score) should be an appropriate estimator for learning processes. Against the aforementioned background, we expected retrospective focus prompts to be most beneficial for novice learners with regard to both learning processes and learning outcomes (e.g., Roelle et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref61">58</reflink>]; Meier et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref62">45</reflink>]; Bisra et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref63">8</reflink>]). Based on previous research on learning processes, we also expect differences in learning processes to mediate differences in learning outcomes (e.g., Hefter and Berthold [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref64">27</reflink>]) We therefore assume that:</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-9">H1</hd> <p> <emph>Retrospective focus prompts will foster the prompt score compared to anticipatory focus and unfocused note prompts</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-10">H2</hd> <p> <emph>Retrospective focus prompts will foster knowledge about working steps compared to anticipatory focus, unfocused note, and no prompts</emph>.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-11">H3</hd> <p> <emph>The prompt score will mediate the potential effect of prompt type on knowledge about working steps</emph>.</p> <p>From a more practical perspective, we wanted to answer this research question:</p> <p>Does the presentation mode (video vs. text‐based tutorials) influence the prompt score, knowledge about working steps, or learning time?</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-12">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184623595-13">Sample and Design</hd> <p>To determine the required sample size, we conducted an a priori power analysis using the software G*Power 3.1.9.7 (Faul et al. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref65">17</reflink>]) for an <emph>F</emph> test (fixed effects, special, main effects and interactions) using the following parameters: medium effect size of <emph>f</emph> = 0.25 (e.g., Meier et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref66">45</reflink>]; Hefter et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref67">30</reflink>]), α = 0.05, and a power of 0.80. According to this analysis, the sample should contain at least 179 participants. Two hundred and five German high school students participated in this experiment (92 female, 95 male; 18 n/a; M<subs>age</subs> = 15.94; SD<subs>age</subs> = 1.02). The experiment comprised two independent variables, presentation mode (video vs. still shots and text) and prompt condition (retrospective focus prompt, anticipatory focus prompt, unfocused note prompt, no prompt), resulting in a 2 × 4 factorial experimental design with eight different experimental conditions to which participants were randomly assigned. One‐hundred and twenty‐seven students took part in the delayed posttest two to three weeks later (~38% dropouts). These dropouts resulted in deviating degrees of freedom (df) in our statistical analyses. The number of participants with respect to prompt type and presentation mode is illustrated in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Number of participants in the experiment and delayed posttest (in parentheses) with respect to prompt type and presentation mode.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Retrospective focus&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Anticipatory focus&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Unfocused note&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;No prompt&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Overall&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Video&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;26 (19)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;26 (18)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25 (11)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;26 (15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;103 (63)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Still shots and text&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25 (17)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25 (15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;25 (15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;27 (17)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;102 (64)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Overall&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;51 (36)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;51 (33)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;50 (26)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;53 (32)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8721;&amp;#8201;=&amp;#8201;205 (127)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0184623595-14">Materials</hd> <p>Participants received a text‐ and picture‐based introduction to the topic. This introduction imparted an explanation of learning goals, the basic functionality of an industrial drilling machine and assisting tools, and an overview of the working steps to be demonstrated in the tutorials. Following this, three tutorials showed an expert demonstrating the operation of an industrial drilling machine, how a workpiece is correctly inserted, and how to drill different kinds of holes. The tutorials were presented either as videos or as still shots and texts. The still shots were derived from the videos, while the presented text was identical to what was said in the videos. All tutorials showed the point‐of‐view perspective. The videos lasted from 152 to 216 s; the respective text‐based tutorials consisted of four to six still shots and texts. Each of the three tutorials was combined with different prompts respective to the experimental condition either before (i.e., anticipatory focus prompts) or after (i.e., retrospective focus prompts and unfocused prompts) the learning material. Table 2 gives an overview of the wording of the prompts. The no‐prompt condition entailed no prompts in addition to the tutorials.</p> <p>2 TABLE Conditions and prompt types.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Condition&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Prompts&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Retrospective&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"What were the main working steps shown in the last section?"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Anticipatory&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"Which working steps must be carried out first?"&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn2" /&gt;"Which working steps must be carried out next?"&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Unfocused&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;"You can take notes here if you like."&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <p>1 <emph>Note:</emph> All prompts are translated from German.</p> <p>2 a The first prompt for the anticipatory focus condition differed slightly from the two following anticipatory prompts.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-15">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184623595-16">Learning Time</hd> <p>We kept records of how long the participants spent reading the introduction to the topic, watching the three tutorials, and answering the prompts. Participants' time to do this was not restricted.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-17">Basic Knowledge</hd> <p>The assessment of basic knowledge involved a single open question asking about how a drilling machine functions. This question addressed the content of the introduction that preceded the video tutorials. The assessment took place before the introduction as a measure of our learners' prior knowledge and also in the immediate posttest to check for our intervention's effectiveness regardless of presentation mode and prompt type. We rated this basic knowledge on a scale from 0 to 4 where each point represents information presented in the introduction. Both the first author and a student research assistant rated the answers of 84 participants (~34% of the sample), resulting in an ICC of 0.95. The student research assistant rated the remaining data.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-18">Prompt Score</hd> <p>The answers to the presented prompts were our basis for assessing the participants' prompt score. The tutorials showed five to six working steps each. Our rating system gave one point for each working step mentioned in the responses, resulting in a scale from 0 (no working steps mentioned) to 5, respectively 6 (all working steps mentioned) for each prompt. The first author and a student research assistant rated the prompts of 31 participants (~20% of the 152 persons provided with a prompt) blind to the experimental condition of the participants. High interrater reliability (ICC = 0.90) allowed the student research assistant to rate the remaining data. The mean of all three prompt ratings yielded the prompt score.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-19">Knowledge About Working Steps</hd> <p>Our main variable for learning outcomes was the task to freely recall the working steps presented in the tutorials. We had the participants list all the working steps they could remember from the tutorials and assessed their answers using the same rating system described regarding the prompt score. The applied joint rating scale comprised all the working steps in all tutorials. Again, the first author and a student research assistant rated ~20% of the data (44 out of 205), resulting in an ICC of 0.97. The student research assistant rated the remaining data.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-20">Advanced Knowledge</hd> <p>It was of further interest to discover how much advanced knowledge the participants gained beyond the working steps presented in the tutorials. Such knowledge comprised information about security aspects when working with an industrial drilling machine, expert tips on how to secure a clean working space, and additional theoretical knowledge (e.g., the right drilling speed for different drilling holes). Although the tutorials imparted this knowledge, the focus prompts (anticipatory and retrospective) did not focus on such knowledge. The assessment consisted of 12 closed true‐or‐false items (four items for each video) in the immediate posttest. The delayed posttest comprised six true‐or‐false items (two for each video). We gave +1 point for a correct and −1 point for an incorrect answer. Participants also had to estimate their subjective certainty for each answer on a scale from 0 to 4. We multiplied participants' correctness with their subjective certainty so that the score for each answer could reach a value from −4 (wrong answer and high certainty) to +4 (right answer and high certainty) and used the mean score for inferential statistics. This procedure of combining correctness with subjective certainty was followed by Eitel et al. ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref68">14</reflink>]) and Hefter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref69">28</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-21">Mental Effort</hd> <p>Mental effort describes the cognitive resources required to process and understand information while learning. After each tutorial, participants received the widely used item "How much mental effort did you invest to follow the shown contents?" (Paas and van Merriënboer [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref70">51</reflink>]). Participants rated their mental effort on a scale from 0 (<emph>lowest</emph>) to 8 (<emph>highest</emph>). This question was asked after the prompt had been answered (in the retrospective focus and unfocused condition) or after they had experienced the tutorial (in the anticipatory focus prompt and the no prompt condition).</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-22">Procedure</hd> <p>The experiment took place in school classrooms, and students were under our complete supervision in the presence of their teacher. We received parental consent for all participants. Participants used either their own devices (laptops or tablets) or devices provided by the school (PCs or tablets). They were then given a short test for prior knowledge and afterwards an introduction to the topic. Participants were given the chance to reread the introduction if they wished to do so. The tutorials were displayed after the introduction. Participants in the video conditions had the option to rewind the videos if they wished to do so, while those learning from still shots and texts had the option to go back to previous still shots. After the tutorials, participants took part in an immediate posttest consisting of a free recall of all working steps imparted and other questions relating to advanced knowledge provided in the videos (such as security aspects). A shortened paper‐pencil version of the immediate posttest took place in the classes 2 to 3 weeks later. This posttest consisted of the same free recall of the working steps and fewer true‐or‐false items.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-23">Results</hd> <p>We applied 0.05 as the alpha level and Bonferroni‐Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons. We report η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> for <emph>F</emph> tests as the effect size qualifying as small (η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.06), medium (η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> between 0.06 and 0.13) or large (η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &gt; 0.13; Cohen [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]). We report <emph>d</emph> as the effect size for <emph>t</emph>‐tests (such as contrast analyses and post hoc tests) qualifying as small (|<emph>d</emph>| between 0.20 and 0.49), medium (|<emph>d</emph>| between 0.50 and 0.79) or large (|<emph>d</emph>| &gt; 0.80; Cohen [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref72">13</reflink>]). We used the software JASP 0.19.0 (JASP‐Team [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref73">32</reflink>]) for all ANOVA, contrast analyses, and post hoc tests. Finally, we relied on the SPSS macro PROCESS (Hayes [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref74">24</reflink>]) for the mediation analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-24">Preliminary Analyses</hd> <p>There were no statistically significant effects of condition on prior knowledge neither regarding presentation modes, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>, 197) = 0.63, <emph>p</emph> = 0.430, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01, nor prompt types, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref76">3</reflink>, 197) = 2.05, <emph>p</emph> = 0.109, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.03.</p> <p>An ANOVA revealed a significant effect of presentation mode on learning time, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref77">1</reflink>, 192) = 53.48, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.22 (large effect), and a significant effect of prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref78">3</reflink>, 192) = 12.29, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.16 (large effect), on learning time. Post hoc analyses showed that learners in still shots and text conditions required less time than learners in the video conditions, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib192" id="ref79">192</reflink>) = −7.31, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = −1.04 (large effect). Further post hoc analyses showed significant differences between the no prompt condition and anticipatory condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib101" id="ref80">101</reflink>) = −3.70, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = −0.73 (medium effect); learners in the no prompt condition finished the digital training condition faster. There were also significant differences between the no prompt condition and retrospective condition, with less time needed in the no prompt condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref81">102</reflink>) = −5.85, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = −1.15 (large effect), and between the unfocused and retrospective condition, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib97" id="ref82">97</reflink>) = −3.72, <emph>p</emph> = 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = −0.75 (medium effect), with less time needed for learners in the unfocused condition.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-25">Learning Processes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184623595-26">Prompt Score</hd> <p>The answers given in response to the prompts served as the basis for our analysis of the prompt score. Since the no‐prompt condition received no prompt, there were no answers, and the analyses only include scores of participants given unfocused note prompts, anticipatory focus prompts, or retrospective focus prompts. First, an ANOVA revealed no effect of presentation mode on the prompt score, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref83">1</reflink>, 146) = 2.35, <emph>p</emph> = 0.128, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.02. As expected, there was an effect of prompt type on the prompt score, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref84">2</reflink>, 146) = 14.68, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.17 (large effect). Figure 1 shows the prompt score with respect to prompt type. We tested our specific hypothesis that retrospective focus prompts would result in a higher prompt score in comparison to all other prompt types by assigning the following contrast weights to the prompt types: anticipatory focus prompt = −1, unfocused note prompt = −1, retrospective focus prompt = 2. This contrast test was statistically significant, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib146" id="ref85">146</reflink>) = 5.23, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, <emph>d</emph> = 0.87 (large effect).</p> <p>On a side note, these differences in prompt scores did not come along with differences in mental effort: an ANOVA revealed no effect of presentation mode on mental effort, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref86">1</reflink>, 192) = 0.62, <emph>p</emph> = 0.431, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01, nor any effect of prompt type on mental effort, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref87">3</reflink>, 192) = 1.20, <emph>p</emph> = 0.310, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.02.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-27">Learning Outcomes</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184623595-28">Effect of the Training Intervention on Basic Knowledge</hd> <p>A mixed ANOVA with the pretest and immediate posttest of basic knowledge as a repeated measures factor and presentation mode and prompt type as between‐subject factors revealed a significant within‐subjects effect, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref88">1</reflink>, 197) = 92.09, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.32 (large effect). Table 3 shows the increase in basic knowledge from pre‐ to immediate posttest. There were no between‐subjects effects for presentation mode, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref89">1</reflink>, 197) = 2.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.144, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01, or prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref90">3</reflink>, 197) = 0.35, <emph>p</emph> = 0.787, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01.</p> <p>3 TABLE Means with standard deviations in parentheses for all measures.</p> <p> <ephtml> &lt;table&gt;&lt;thead valign="bottom"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left" /&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Video&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Still shots and text&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;th align="left"&gt;Measure&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Retrospective&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Anticipatory&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Unfocused&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;No prompt&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Retrospective&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Anticipatory&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Unfocused&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;No prompt&lt;/th&gt;&lt;th align="center"&gt;Overall&lt;/th&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/thead&gt;&lt;tbody valign="top"&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Basic knowledge&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn3" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Pretest&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.12 (0.33)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.04 (0.20)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.00 (0.00)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.08 (0.27)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.08 (0.28)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.00 (0.00)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.08 (0.28)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.19 (0.40)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.07 (0.26)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Immediate posttest&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.62 (0.85)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.69 (0.97)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.72 (0.98)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.39 (0.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.88 (1.01)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.76 (0.93)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.80 (0.87)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.67 (1.00)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.69 (0.91)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Advanced Knowledge&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn4" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Immediate posttest&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.90 (0.86)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.77 (0.92)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.10 (0.99)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.80 (0.77)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.74 (0.83)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.13 (0.85)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.58 (0.67)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.90 (0.76)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.86 (0.83)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Delayed posttest&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.53 (1.05)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.61 (0.68)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.94 (0.98)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.57 (0.87)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.70 (1.35)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.60 (0.87)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.61 (0.69)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.45 (1.15)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.58 (0.96)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Knowledge about working steps&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn5" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;td align="center" /&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Immediate posttest&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.54 (2.75)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.62 (2.56)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.67 (4.04)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.12 (2.83)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.75 (2.77)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.96 (2.28)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.76 (1.96)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.56 (2.49)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.11 (2.78)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Delayed posttest&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.68 (3.97)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.22 (2.29)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.09 (2.95)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.40 (2.82)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.41 (3.04)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.53 (2.33)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.93 (2.22)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.53 (2.70)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.48 (2.91)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Prompt score&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn6" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;2.46 (1.68)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.04 (0.95)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.16 (1.68)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.96 (1.63)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.29 (1.32)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;0.37 (0.75)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;&amp;#8212;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;1.39 (1.38)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Mental effort&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn7" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.69 (1.74)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.61 (1.94)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.46 (2.08)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.50 (2.10)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.07 (2.10)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.08 (1.58)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;4.04 (1.51)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.91 (1.88)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;3.92 (1.88)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;tr&gt;&lt;td align="left"&gt;Learning time&lt;xref ref-type="fn" rid="tfn8" /&gt;&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;24.30 (7.01)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;23.19 (5.90)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;19.96 (6.87)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;17.21 (3.95)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;18.92 (10.73)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;14.22 (6.83)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;12.83 (7.07)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;10.05 (5.18)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;td align="center"&gt;17.49 (8.27)&lt;/td&gt;&lt;/tr&gt;&lt;/tbody&gt;&lt;/table&gt; </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>3 a Basic knowledge about the functions of a drilling machine, rated from 0 (lowest) to 4 (highest).</item> <item>4 b Advanced knowledge beyond working steps displayed in the tutorials, score from −4 (lowest) to +4 (highest).</item> <item>5 c Knowledge about the working steps displayed in the tutorials, possible score from 0 (no working steps mentioned) to 17 (all working steps mentioned).</item> <item>6 d Working steps mentioned in the answers to prompts, possible score from 0 (no working steps mentioned) to 6 (all working steps mentioned). No prompt score is available for participants in the no prompt condition. The prompt score's overall mean excludes participants of the no prompt condition.</item> <item>7 e Mental effort invested in following contents of the tutorials, score from 0 (lowest) to 8 (highest).</item> <item>8 f Time spent to elaborate the introduction and three tutorials plus prompts in minutes.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0184623595-29">Effects of Prompt Type and Presentation Mode on Knowledge About Working Steps</hd> <p>Immediate and delayed posttest were analyzed separately. For the immediate posttest, an ANOVA showed no effect of presentation mode, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref91">1</reflink>, 195) = 3.53, <emph>p</emph> = 0.062, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.02, nor effect of prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref92">3</reflink>, 195) = 1.19, <emph>p</emph> = 0.314, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.02, on knowledge about working steps. Nevertheless, we tested our specific hypothesis that the retrospective prompt group would outscore all other groups by conducting a contrast analysis with the following contrast weights: no prompt = −1, anticipatory focus prompt = −1, unfocused note prompt = −1, retrospective focus prompt = 3. Against our expectation, there was no statistically significant difference between prompt types, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib195" id="ref93">195</reflink>) = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> = 0.943. Due to the high dropout between immediate and delayed posttest and to detect any selection effects in our sample, we conducted another ANOVA for the immediate posttest only for participants who took part in the delayed posttest. This ANOVA also showed no effect of presentation mode, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref94">1</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref95">119</reflink>) = 2.06, <emph>p</emph> = 0.154, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.02, and no effect of prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref96">3</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref97">119</reflink>) = 2.43, <emph>p</emph> = 0.068, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.06.</p> <p>For the delayed posttest, an ANOVA revealed no effect of presentation mode, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref98">1</reflink>, 119) = 0.23, <emph>p</emph> = 0.632, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01, but a significant effect of prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref99">3</reflink>, 119) = 3.26, <emph>p</emph> = 0.024, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.08 (medium effect). We tested our specific hypothesis that retrospective focus prompts would lead to higher knowledge about working steps compared to all other prompt types by assigning the following contrast weights to the prompt types: no prompt = −1, anticipatory focus prompt = −1, unfocused note prompt = −1, retrospective focus prompt = 3. This contrast test was statistically significant, <emph>t</emph>(<reflink idref="bib119" id="ref100">119</reflink>) = 2.52, <emph>p</emph> = 0.013, <emph>d</emph> = 0.46 (small effect).</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-30">Effects of Prompt Type and Presentation Mode on Advanced Knowledge</hd> <p>Again, immediate and delayed posttest were analyzed separately. For the immediate posttest, an ANOVA showed no effect of presentation mode, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref101">1</reflink>, 187) = 0.23, <emph>p</emph> = 0.632, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01, nor an effect of prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref102">3</reflink>, 187) = 0.22, <emph>p</emph> = 0.885, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01. For the delayed posttest, there was no effect of presentation mode either, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref103">1</reflink>, 112) = 0.16, <emph>p</emph> = 0.690, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> &lt; 0.01, and no effect of prompt type, <emph>F</emph>(<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref104">3</reflink>, 112) = 0.32, <emph>p</emph> = 0.808, η<subs>p</subs><sups>2</sups> = 0.01.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-31">Learning Processes Mediating the Effects on Learning Outcomes</hd> <p>We conducted a mediation analysis to test our Hypothesis 3 that the effect of prompt type on learning outcomes would be mediated by the prompt score derived from answers to the prompts. Because there was no effect of prompt type on learning outcomes for the immediate posttest, the mediation analysis only includes the delayed posttest results. The independent variable prompt type was dichotomized into the two conditions retrospective focus prompt vs. no retrospective focus prompt (i.e., anticipatory focus prompt and unfocused note prompt). The no‐prompt condition was excluded from the mediation analysis since that condition yielded no prompt score. Accordingly, 95 participants were included in this analysis: 36 in the retrospective condition and 59 in the non‐retrospective condition. The dependent variable was the delayed posttest for knowledge about working steps while the prompt score was the potential mediator. The calculations include 95% bootstrap percentile confidence intervals (CIs) from 10,000 bootstrap samples. Figure 1 shows the mediation results. Our analysis revealed a significant total effect of prompt type on knowledge about working steps (c path), <emph>B</emph> = 1.73, <emph>p</emph> = 0.006. It also reveals a positive direct effect of prompt type on the prompt score (a path), <emph>B</emph> = 1.46, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001, and a significant positive effect of the prompt score on knowledge about working steps (b path), <emph>B</emph> = 0.67, <emph>p</emph> &lt; 0.001. We detected a statistically significant indirect effect of prompt type on knowledge about working steps via the prompt score, <emph>B</emph> = 0.98 [0.325, 1798]. The direct effect of prompt type on knowledge about working steps was not significant (c′ path), <emph>B</emph> = 0.75, <emph>p</emph> = 0.249.</p> <p> <img src="https://imageserver.ebscohost.com/img/embimages/rdk/BU8/01mar25/acp70049-fig-0001.jpg?ephost1=dGJyMNXb4kSepq84yOvqOLCmsE6epq5Srqa4SK6WxWXS" alt="acp70049-fig-0001.jpg" title="1 Mediation results for the delayed posttest. The independent variable was dichotomized, comparing retrospective focus prompts versus no retrospective focus prompt (i.e., anticipatory focus and unfocused note prompt). The no‐prompt condition is not in the model since this condition yielded no prompt score. *p &lt; 0.05." /> </p> <p></p> <hd id="AN0184623595-33">Discussion</hd> <p>In the current study, we used video tutorials illustrating the operation of an industrial drilling machine, combined them with different kinds of prompts, and analyzed the learning processes (i.e., prompt score derived from answers to our prompts) and outcomes (i.e., knowledge about working steps) as our key variables. Our aim was to effectively impart the different working steps displayed in the tutorials. We also wanted to shed light on open research questions regarding the varied effectiveness of different prompt types by systematically manipulating the instructional support between different experimental conditions. On a side note, it was of interest to identify possible differences between video‐ and text‐based tutorials regarding learning processes, learning outcomes, and learning time. Taking recourse to video tutorials that originated from industrial companies and are used for technical apprenticeship enabled us to increase our study's ecological validity, contributing to both research and practice.</p> <p>Overall, retrospective focus prompts are the most effective learning support in comparison to anticipatory focus prompts and unfocused prompts, with learning processes and learning outcomes most pronounced in the retrospective focus condition. Concerning our research questions, there were no differences in the presentation mode (i.e., video vs. text‐based tutorials).</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-34">Contributions Referring to the Effects of Different Prompt Types</hd> <p>We were mostly interested in the degree to which the different prompt types would differ in their capability to induce learning processes, how the different prompt conditions might differ in learning outcomes, and the extent to which the learning process (i.e., the number of working steps named in the answers to our prompts) would mediate such differences in our most important learning outcome—namely, the knowledge about working steps. According to the ACT* theory (Anderson [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref105">3</reflink>]), knowledge about these working steps is a necessary basis for subsequent skill acquisition so that especially novices (as in our sample) would benefit from a combination of video tutorials and focus prompts aiming at fostering knowledge about working steps.</p> <p>First of all, the results show the predicted manipulation effect (Hypothesis 1): the task to list the working steps displayed in the videos in retrospect was the most effective way to increase the focus on key information (i.e., the working steps) presented in the tutorials. The prompt score was significantly higher in the retrospective focus condition than in the anticipatory focus and unfocused conditions. These results support the idea that both anticipatory and unfocused instructions led to less learning engagement (i.e., lower prompt score) and thereby a poorer learning outcome in a sample with little prior knowledge (Renkl [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref106">54</reflink>]; Meier et al. [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref107">45</reflink>]; Bisra et al. [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref108">8</reflink>]). We thus add to the literature that retrospectively focusing on key information of learning contents evokes deeper learning compared to learning with anticipatory or unfocused prompts.</p> <p>With regard to Hypothesis 2, these differences in learning processes transferred into differences in delayed posttest performance (i.e., a free recall task on working steps demonstrated in the tutorials). Participants in the retrospective focus condition recalled more working steps after two to three weeks. Previous research has already shown that instructional prompts foster learning with different kinds of videos, for example, learning from video lectures (e.g., Zhang et al. [<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref109">72</reflink>]), learning from video‐based modeling (e.g., Meier et al. [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref110">46</reflink>]) or video representations for professional vision (e.g., Farrell et al. [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref111">16</reflink>]), albeit only in an immediate posttest. We add to the literature that video tutorials in combination with retrospective focus prompts foster learning of working steps in a delayed posttest. Interestingly, these differences in posttest performance are not apparent immediately after the experiment. We would like to discuss two reasons for this:</p> <p>First, all prompt conditions entailed the same well‐designed digital tutorials and only differed in the kind of instructional support. The tutorials themselves could enable the learners to recall working steps very soon after the tutorials. Learners may not need instructional support for an immediate posttest, and their simple retention performance (i.e., remembering what they had just seen) is sufficient here. After two to three weeks, however, the advantages of deeply processing learning material become evident. This result pattern is in line with previous research, indicating that lasting knowledge after several weeks requires deeply processing learning material while learning. For instance, deeper learning processes (e.g., higher quality of self‐explanations) predicted greater knowledge in delayed posttests (Hefter and Berthold [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref112">26</reflink>]). By focusing on the working steps in their answer to their prompts, learners in the retrospective focus prompt condition were able to build a coherent mental representation (Mayer [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref113">43</reflink>]) of the different working steps needed to perform a certain task on an industrial drilling machine. When mere retention is no longer possible, participants can draw on this mental representation to freely recall the working steps imparted in the tutorials. The more advanced the mental representation, the more working steps could be recalled, resulting in learning outcomes differing between the different prompt conditions.</p> <p>Second, the experiment took place in a supervised setting. Experimenters and teachers were present, reducing potential disruptions (e.g., students distracting each other, technical problems). Because the number of interruptions is negatively associated with learning outcomes (Hefter et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref114">29</reflink>]), deeply processing learning material and instructional support to aid learners becomes more important. In a more disruptive setting, deeply processing the learning material might already have been required for an immediate posttest.</p> <p>The results of the mediation analysis (Hypothesis 3) demonstrate that—as expected—it is the learning process of focusing on working steps (initiated by our prompts) that triggers differences in learning outcomes between the different conditions. There is a statistically significant indirect effect. The number of working steps mentioned in the responses to our prompts (i.e., the prompt score) mediates the effect on the number of correct working steps mentioned in the free recall task 2 to 3 weeks after the intervention. This underscores the importance of retrospective focus prompts as an instructional method to shift the focus of learners on key information in learning material to deeply process content and consequently achieve higher learning outcomes. All in all, retrospective focus prompts are a promising tool when learning with tutorials.</p> <p>Beyond the knowledge about working steps, this study included additional learning outcomes, namely basic and advanced knowledge. The assessment of basic knowledge served as a pretest to assess the samples' prior knowledge, showing that they had little prior knowledge. We also assessed their basic knowledge in a posttest and detected a significant increase from pre‐ to posttest (i.e., within‐subjects effect), showing our training intervention's general effectiveness. We focused on a sample without prior knowledge because novice learners are the primary target group of video tutorials. However, this procedure does not allow any conclusions about the role prior knowledge plays in the effectiveness of different prompt types. Meier et al. ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref115">45</reflink>]) provided initial indications that prior knowledge plays an important role when implementing prompts. Future research should work toward investigating the importance of prior knowledge as a possible moderator for the effectiveness of different instructional support. In addition, we wanted to see whether participants would be able to learn information that our focus prompts had not focused on (i.e., advanced knowledge), such as safety aspects. Our aim here was to investigate whether focusing on working steps might come at the price of not processing further information provided in the tutorials. There were no differences between the different prompt types regarding advanced knowledge, indicating that participants still absorb information that they have not specifically been told to focus on. However, information in the tutorials extending beyond the working steps was still closely related to the working steps. A focus prompt might be such a cognitively demanding task that information completely unrelated to the focused information is no longer processed. Our tutorials contained no such information. Future research should investigate further possible overloading effects of focused processing prompts.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-35">Further Practical Implications</hd> <p>From a more practical point of view, we were also interested in any differences between a video tutorial and a text‐based tutorial, comprising still shots and texts derived from the videos. These results show no differences between these two presentation modes with regard to learning processes and learning outcomes. However, we did find differences in the time it takes to finish the tutorials: learning with still shots and texts took significantly less time than learning with the video tutorials. First, these findings replicate previous findings (Hefter et al. [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref116">30</reflink>]). Second, they comprise a concrete implication for the practical application of tutorials. When short on time, still shots and texts might be favored over video tutorials as being effective and efficient. Although video tutorials are very popular, and it would seem intuitive to use videos when trying to impart different working steps on an industrial machine, our findings indicate that text‐ and picture‐based learning is more efficient than learning with video tutorials: learning with still shots and text took less time when consuming a video, with no differences in learning processes and learning outcomes.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-36">Limitations and Implications for Future Research</hd> <p>One study limitation is the high dropout rate from the immediate to delayed posttest. While these dropouts are attributable to environmental factors (e.g., absence due to illness), they do, however, affect the power of our results, and this is why we may not have been able to detect all differences between the different experimental conditions for the delayed posttest. In addition, an increase in knowledge was observed from immediate to delayed posttest for the retrospective focus condition. According to the Decay Theory of Immediate Memory (Brown [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref117">9</reflink>]) one would expect the posttest performance to worsen as the interval between learning and testing increases (see Ricker et al. [<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref118">56</reflink>] for an overview). We analyzed the immediate posttest scores only of participants who took part in the delayed posttest to detect any selection effect in our sample. Because the results remained statistically non‐significant, we assume there was no selection effect from immediate to delayed posttest. The increase from immediate to delayed posttest is not statistically significant and also in line with previous research, for example, on learning from erroneous examples (Adams et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref119">1</reflink>]; McLaren et al. [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref120">44</reflink>]) or self‐explanations (Hefter and Berthold [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref121">26</reflink>]). However, this increase might also indicate a testing effect in our study's retrospective condition. The testing effect suggests that retrieval practice (e.g., answering prompts while learning) enhances the long‐term retention of information (e.g., Rowland [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref122">60</reflink>]; Johnson and Mayer [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref123">33</reflink>]; Karpicke and Aue [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref124">35</reflink>]). Because the testing effect is also based on deep processing (<emph>elaborative retrieval hypothesis</emph>; e.g., Carpenter and Delosh [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref125">10</reflink>]) there might be beneficial synergies between the testing effect and retrospective focus prompts. Future research should try to investigate further the relationship between deep processing, testing effects, and focus prompts, for example, by varying the testing interval between different experimental conditions or by using different test forms (e.g., free recall vs. recognition tasks). Additionally, we can only draw limited conclusions regarding the relationship between prior knowledge and the effectiveness of different prompt types in a technical tutorial. Future research should target the role of prior knowledge by working with a sample with greater variance of prior knowledge (e.g., a sample of technical apprentices). In addition, the role of cognitive load should be regarded in more detail by assessing different kinds of cognitive load (i.e., germane cognitive load, intrinsic cognitive load, extraneous cognitive load; Sweller et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref126">66</reflink>]; Sweller et al. [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref127">67</reflink>]). Furthermore, we consider the supervised setting (i.e., teachers and experimenters present in the classroom) as a possible explanation for missing effects in learning outcomes for the immediate posttest. Future research should try to replicate our findings in an unsupervised setting or investigate possible supervision effects on learning outcomes, for example, by systematically manipulating supervision in a training intervention. Besides such supervision effects, the advantages of taking recourse to video tutorials when learning could be further explored. Video tutorials give learners the opportunity to adapt the learning environment to their own needs (Sudrajat and Wati [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref128">65</reflink>]). Whereas there is evidence that a higher video speed increases learning efficiency (Murphy et al. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref129">48</reflink>]) and that note‐taking improves learning outcomes (Hefter [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref130">25</reflink>]), open questions remain regarding synergies between adapting video speed and aiding learners with instructional support. A current meta‐analysis showed a potential moderating influence of learner‐centered pacing on learning (Tan et al. [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref131">68</reflink>]). Future research should investigate additional potential beneficial interaction effects between instructional support and video speed. In addition, future research could use retrospective focus prompts not only to foster learning but also to evaluate the retention of learning content as training progresses, which is already done in initial studies. For example, frontline grocery and telecommunications workers received daily bite‐sized workplace training content and answered two to three retrospective focused questions each time (Halilova et al. [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref132">22</reflink>]). Furthermore, we tried to assess any overloading effects of focused processing prompts on advanced knowledge displayed in the tutorials (i.e., knowledge extending beyond the mere presentation of a working step). However, the information in our learning material was thematically close to the working steps participants were supposed to focus on. Future research should target possible overloading effects of focused prompts by implementing additional instructions. Such additional instructions might be further information (e.g., aiming at advanced knowledge) or further prompts (e.g., a combination of anticipatory and retrospective focus). Finally, our video tutorials feature a first‐person perspective, without any visible instructor or pedagogical agent present (e.g., Wu et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref133">71</reflink>]). Future research might analyze possible differences in learning between first‐ and third‐person perspective video tutorials with an instructor present.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-37">Conclusion</hd> <p>All in all, we succeeded in creating an effective digital training intervention by combining authentic technical tutorials with different prompt types. Our results underscore the superiority of retrospectively focusing on working steps when trying to impart knowledge about working steps to novice learners.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-38">Author Contributions</hd> <p> <bold>Simon A. Schriek:</bold> conceptualization, investigation, writing – original draft, methodology, visualization, writing – review and editing, formal analysis, data curation, software. <bold>Kirsten Berthold:</bold> writing – review and editing. <bold>Markus H. Hefter:</bold> funding acquisition, writing – review and editing, supervision, project administration, conceptualization, methodology.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-39">Acknowledgments</hd> <p>We would like to thank the student assistants Janina Quanz and Marie Wallraff for their assistance in conducting the experiment and in coding the qualitative data, and Carole Cürten for proofreading. We would also like to thank all students who took part in our experiment as well as all teachers and the schools' personnel for their support. Finally, we would like to thank our industrial partner for their support in developing the learning material. Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL.</p> <p>This research was funded by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Industry, Climate Action and Energy of the State of North Rhine‐Westphalia, Germany (MWIDE NRW) in the excellence cluster "it's OWL" as part of the project "Intelligente Assistenz für die technische Ausbildung (Projekt iAtA) [Intelligent assistance for technical training]."</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-40">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>The study was conducted in accordance with the Ethical Guidelines of the German Association of Psychologists (DGPs). It was approved by the Ethics Committee of Bielefeld University (No. 2022–204).</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-41">Consent</hd> <p>We received parental informed consent of all participants.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-42">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0184623595-43">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.</p> <ref id="AN0184623595-44"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref75" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Funding: This work was supported by the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Industry, Climate Action and Energy of the State of North Rhine‐Westphalia, Germany (MWIDE NRW), 005‐2011‐0942.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0184623595-45"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Adams, D. M., B. M. McLaren, K. Durkin, et al. 2014. " Using Erroneous Examples to Improve Mathematics Learning With a Web‐Based Tutoring System." Computers in Human Behavior 36 : 401 – 411. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.053.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref7" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Amelia, V. S., S. Susilawati, and J. B. Poernomo. 2022. " Students' Analytical Thinking Skills Through Tutorial Video Assisted Inquiry Approach on Direct Current Electricity Grade XII Senior High School." Berkala Ilmiah Pendidikan Fisika 10, no. 1 : 119 – 125.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref13" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Anderson, J. R. 1982. " Acquisition of Cognitive Skill." Psychological Review 89, no. 4 : 369 – 406.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref50" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Bender, L., A. Renkl, and A. Eitel. 2021. " When and How Seductive Details Harm Learning. A Study Using Cued Retrospective Reporting." Applied Cognitive Psychology 35, no. 4 : 948 – 959. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3822.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref41" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Berthold, K., and A. Renkl. 2009. " Instructional Aids to Support a Conceptual Understanding of Multiple Representations." Journal of Educational Psychology 101, no. 1 : 70 – 87. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013247.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref20" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Berthold, K., and A. Renkl. 2010. " How to Foster Active Processing of Explanations in Instructional Communication." Educational Psychology Review 22, no. 1 : 25 – 40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐010‐9124‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref22" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Berthold, K., H. Röder, D. Knörzer, W. Kessler, and A. Renkl. 2011. " The Double‐Edged Effects of Explanation Prompts." Computers in Human Behavior 27, no. 1 : 69 – 75.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref39" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bisra, K., Q. Liu, J. C. Nesbit, F. Salimi, and P. H. Winne. 2018. " Inducing Self‐Explanation: A Meta‐Analysis." Educational Psychology Review 30, no. 3 : 703 – 725. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐018‐9434‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref117" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Brown, J. 1958. " Some Tests of the Decay Theory of Immediate Memory." Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 10, no. 1 : 12 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470215808416249.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Carpenter, S. K., and E. L. Delosh. 2006. " Impoverished Cue Support Enhances Subsequent Retention: Support for the Elaborative Retrieval Explanation of the Testing Effect." Memory &amp; Cognition 34 : 268 – 276. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193405.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chandra, R., S. Syahril, A. Ambiyar, and R. Refdinal. 2023. " Validity of Video Tutorials Cnc/Cam for Learning in the Machining Engineering Department of Vocational High Schools." Jurnal Penelitian Pendidikan IPA 9, no. Special Issue : 836 – 842. https://doi.org/10.29303/jppipa.v9ispecialissue.6109.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chi, M. T. H., and R. Wylie. 2014. " The ICAP Framework: Linking Cognitive Engagement to Active Learning Outcomes." Educational Psychologist 49, no. 4 : 219 – 243. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.965823.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. Erlbaum.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Eitel, A., A. Prinz, J. Kollmer, et al. 2021. " The Misconceptions About Multimedia Learning Questionnaire: An Empirical Evaluation Study With Teachers and Student Teachers." Psychology Learning and Teaching 20, no. 3 : 420 – 444. https://doi.org/10.1177/14757257211028723.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Erickson, M., D. Marks, and E. Karcher. 2020. " Characterizing Student Engagement With Hands‐On, Problem‐Based, and Lecture Activities in an Introductory College Course." Teaching and Learning Inquiry 8, no. 1 : 138 – 153. https://doi.org/10.20343/teachlearninqu.8.1.10.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Farrell, M., M. Martin, R. Böheim, et al. 2024. " Signaling Cues and Focused Prompts for Professional Vision Support: The Interplay of Instructional Design and Situational Interest in Preservice Teachers' Video Analysis." Instructional Science 52, no. 6 : 879 – 917. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251‐024‐09662‐y.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Faul, F., E. Erdfelder, A. G. Lang, and A. Buchner. 2007. " G* Power 3: A Flexible Statistical Power Analysis Program for the Social, Behavioral, and Biomedical Sciences." Behavior Research Methods 39, no. 2 : 175 – 191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Fiorella, L., and R. E. Mayer. 2021. " The Generative Activity Principle in Multimedia Learning." In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, 339 – 350. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garner, R., M. G. Gillingham, and C. S. White. 1989. " Effects of "Seductive Details" on Macroprocessing and Microprocessing in Adults and Children." Cognition and Instruction 6, no. 1 : 41 – 57. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532690xci0601_2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giannakos, M. N. 2013. " Exploring the Video‐Based Learning Research: A Review of the Literature." British Journal of Educational Technology 44, no. 6 : 12070. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12070.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Giannakos, M. N., S. Papavlasopoulou, and K. Sharma. 2020. " Monitoring Children's Learning Through Wearable Eye‐Tracking: The Case of a Making‐Based Coding Activity." IEEE Pervasive Computing 19, no. 1 : 10 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1109/MPRV.2019.2941929.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Halilova, J. G., D. Valtchanov, and R. S. Rosenbaum. 2024. " Rapid Learning in Frontline Grocery Workers During the COVID‐19 Pandemic." Applied Cognitive Psychology 38, no. 6 : e70008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harp, S. F., and R. E. Mayer. 1998. " How Seductive Details Do Their Damage: A Theory of Cognitive Interest in Science Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology 90, no. 3 : 414 – 434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hayes, A. F. 2018. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation and Conditional Process Analysis. Second Edition (Methodology in the Social Sciences). 2nd ed. Guilford Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefter, M. H. 2024. " Note‐Taking Fosters Distance Video Learning: Smartphones as Risk and Intellectual Values as Protective Factors." Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 : 16962. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598‐024‐67898‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefter, M. H., and K. Berthold. 2022. " Active Ingredients and Factors for Deep Processing During an Example‐Based Training Intervention." Learning Environments Research 25, no. 1 : 17 – 39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984‐020‐09347‐6.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefter, M. H., and K. Berthold. 2023. " Promoting Online Learning Processes and Outcomes via Video Examples and Prompts." Interactive Learning Environments 1–13 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2022.2164786.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefter, M. H., B. Fromme, and K. Berthold. 2022. " Digital Training Intervention on Strategies for Tackling Physical Misconceptions—Self‐Explanation Matters." Applied Cognitive Psychology 36, no. 3 : 648 – 658. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3951.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefter, M. H., V. Kubik, and K. Berthold. 2023. " Can Prompts Improve Self‐Explaining an Online Video Lecture? Yes, but Do Not Disturb! " International Journal of Educational Technology in Higher Education 20, no. 1 : 15. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41239‐023‐00383‐9.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hefter, M. H., I. ten Hagen, C. Krense, K. Berthold, and A. Renkl. 2019. " Effective and Efficient Acquisition of Argumentation Knowledge by Self‐Explaining Examples: Videos, Texts, or Graphic Novels? " Journal of Educational Psychology 111, no. 8 : 1396 – 1405. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000350.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hund, L., and C. Getrich. 2015. " A Pilot Study of Short Computing Video Tutorials in a Graduate Public Health Biostatistics Course." Journal of Statistics Education 23, no. 2 : 1 – 16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10691898.2015.11889736.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> JASP‐Team. 2024. JASP (Version 0.19.0) [Computer Software].</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnson, C. I., and R. E. Mayer. 2009. " A Testing Effect With Multimedia Learning." Journal of Educational Psychology 101, no. 3 : 621 – 629. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015183.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kalyuga, S. 2012. " Instructional Benefits of Spoken Words: A Review of Cognitive Load Factors." Educational Research Review 7, no. 2 : 145 – 159. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2011.12.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karpicke, J. D., and W. R. Aue. 2015. " The Testing Effect Is Alive and Well With Complex Materials." Educational Psychology Review 27 : 317 – 326. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐015‐9309‐3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Klein, M., B. Otto, M. R. Fischer, and R. Stark. 2019. " Fostering Medical Students' Clinical Reasoning by Learning From Errors in Clinical Case Vignettes: Effects and Conditions of Additional Prompting Procedures to Foster Self‐Explanations." Advances in Health Sciences Education: Theory and Practice 24, no. 2 : 331 – 351. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459‐018‐09870‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kuhara, K. 1980. " Effects of Anticipation Activity on the Recall of Texts." Japanese Psychological Research 22, no. 2 : 90 – 96.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kühl, T., S. D. Navratil, and S. Münzer. 2018. " Animations and Static Pictures: The Influence of Prompting and Time of Testing." Learning and Instruction 58 : 201 – 209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.07.006.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lai, G., Z. Zhu, and D. Williams. 2017. " Enhance Students' Learning in Business Statistics Class Using Video Tutorials." Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology 6, no. 1 : 31 – 44.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lloyd, S. A., and C. L. Robertson. 2012. " Screencast Tutorials Enhance Student Learning of Statistics." Teaching of Psychology 39, no. 1 : 67 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628311430640.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Loffing, F., and R. Cañal‐Bruland. 2017. " Anticipation in Sport." Current Opinion in Psychology 16 : 6 – 11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Majgaard, G., and L. Bertel. 2018. " Making Video Tutorials in the Classroom – Tacit Knowledge on Display." In Communications in Computer and Information Science. HCI International 2018 – Posters' Extended Abstracts, edited by C. Stephanidis, vol. 852, 73 – 77. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐3‐319‐92285‐0_11.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mayer, R. E. 2021. " Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning." In The Cambridge Handbook of Multimedia Learning, edited by R. E. Mayer and L. Fiorella, 57 – 72. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108894333.008.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McLaren, B. M., D. M. Adams, and R. E. Mayer. 2015. " Delayed Learning Effects With Erroneous Examples: A Study of Learning Decimals With a Web‐Based Tutor." International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education 25 : 520 – 542. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40593‐015‐0064‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meier, J., P. Hesse, S. Abele, A. Renkl, and I. Glogger‐Frey. 2023. " Better Self‐Explaining Backwards or Forwards? Prompting Self‐Explanation in Video‐Based Modelling Examples for Learning a Diagnostic Strategy." Instructional Science 52, no. 4 : 613 – 638. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251‐023‐09651‐7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Meier, J. M., P. Hesse, S. Abele, A. Renkl, and I. Glogger‐Frey. 2024. " Video‐Based Modeling Examples and Comparative Self‐Explanation Prompts for Teaching a Complex Problem‐Solving Strategy." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 40, no. 4 : 1 – 19. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12991.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Müller, S., B. Abernethy, J. Reece, et al. 2009. " An In‐Situ Examination of the Timing of Information Pick‐Up for Interception by Cricket Batsmen of Different Skill Levels." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 10, no. 6 : 644 – 652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2009.04.002.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Murphy, D. H., K. M. Hoover, K. Agadzhanyan, J. C. Kuehn, and A. D. Castel. 2022. " Learning in Double Time: The Effect of Lecture Video Speed on Immediate and Delayed Comprehension." Applied Cognitive Psychology 36, no. 1 : 69 – 82. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3899.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naicker, L., K. Govender, and V. S. Singaram. 2019. " Feasibility and Perceptions of Video Tutorials for Intern Training in Anaesthesia: A Survey." South African Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia 25, no. 3 : 16 – 23.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Otieno, C., H. Spada, K. Liebler, T. Ludemann, U. Deil, and A. Renkl. 2013. " Informing About Climate Change and Invasive Species: How the Presentation of Information Affects Perception of Risk, Emotions, and Learning." Environmental Education Research 20, no. 5 : 612 – 638. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504622.2013.833589.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Paas, F. G. W. C., and J. J. G. van Merriënboer. 1994. " Variability of Worked Examples and Transfer of Geometrical Problem‐Solving Skills: A Cognitive‐Load Approach." Journal of Educational Psychology 86, no. 1 : 122 – 133. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022‐0663.86.1.122.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Park, B., A. Korbach, and R. Brünken. 2015. " Do Learner Characteristics Moderate the Seductive‐Details‐Effect? A Cognitive‐Load‐Study Using Eye‐Tracking." Journal of Educational Technology &amp; Society 18, no. 4 : 24 – 36.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Randhawa, G. K., A. Shachak, K. L. Courtney, and A. Kushniruk. 2020. " Effective Design, Development, and Evaluation of Video Tutorials for Electronic Medical Record Training." ACI Open 04, no. 1 : e69 – e82. https://doi.org/10.1055/s‐0040‐1708036.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renkl, A. 1997. " Learning From Worked‐Out Examples: A Study on Individual Differences." Cognitive Science 21, no. 1 : 1 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog2101_1.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renkl, A., and R. K. Atkinson. 2007. " Interactive Learning Environments: Contemporary Issues and Trends. An Introduction to the Special Issue." Educational Psychology Review 19, no. 3 : 235 – 238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐007‐9052‐5.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ricker, T. J., E. Vergauwe, and N. Cowan. 2016. " Decay Theory of Immediate Memory: From Brown (1958) to Today (2014)." Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 69, no. 10 : 1969 – 1995. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470218.2014.914546.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roelle, J., S. Hiller, K. Berthold, and S. Rumann. 2017. " Example‐Based Learning: The Benefits of Prompting Organization Before Providing Examples." Learning and Instruction 49 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.012.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roelle, J., N. Lehmkuhl, M.‐U. Beyer, and K. Berthold. 2015. " The Role of Specificity, Targeted Learning Activities, and Prior Knowledge for the Effects of Relevance Instructions." Journal of Educational Psychology 107, no. 3 : 705 – 723. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000010.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rosen, R. 2012. Anticipatory Systems. Vol. 1. Springer New York. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4614‐1269‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Rowland, C. A. 2014. " The Effect of Testing Versus Restudy on Retention: A Meta‐Analytic Review of the Testing Effect." Psychological Bulletin 140, no. 6 : 1432 – 1463. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037559.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Runswick, O. R., A. Roca, A. M. Williams, A. P. McRobert, and J. S. North. 2018. " The Temporal Integration of Information During Anticipation." Psychology of Sport and Exercise 37 : 100 – 108. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.05.001.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schriek, S. A., K. Berthold, and M. H. Hefter. 2024. Retrospective Note Prompts Support Learning From Video Tutorials. Presentation at the 28th JURE Conference, Sevilla, Spain.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sharkey, T. C., and S. G. Nurre. 2016. " Video Tutorials Within an Undergraduate Operations Research Course: Student Perception on Their Integration and Creating a Blended Learning Environment." INFORMS Transactions on Education 17, no. 1 : 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.1287/ited.2015.0153.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Singh, A.‐M., N. Marcus, and P. Ayres. 2012. " The Transient Information Effect: Investigating the Impact of Segmentation on Spoken and Written Text." Applied Cognitive Psychology 26, no. 6 : 848 – 853. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2885.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sudrajat, B., and E. F. Wati. 2021. " Problem‐Based Blended Learning Using Video Tutorial in Accordance With Student Ability." KnE Social Sciences 5, no. 3 : 96 – 104. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v5i3.853.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J., P. Ayres, and S. Kalyuga. 2011. Cognitive Load Theory. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978‐1‐4419‐8126‐4.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sweller, J., J. J. G. van Merriënboer, and F. G. W. C. Paas. 1998. " Cognitive Architecture and Instructional Design." Educational Psychology Review 10 : 251 – 296. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022193728205.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tan, L. P., S. Y. Gong, Y. J. Wang, X. R. Guo, X. Z. Xu, and Y. Q. Wang. 2025. " Enhancing Academic Performance Through Self‐Explanation in Digital Learning Environments (DLEs): A Three‐Level Meta‐Analysis." Educational Psychology Review 37, no. 1 : 20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648‐025‐10001‐x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> van der Meij, J., and H. van der Meij. 2015. " A Test of the Design of a Video Tutorial for Software Training." Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 31, no. 2 : 116 – 132. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12082.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wang, Z., and O. Adesope. 2017. " Do Focused Self‐Explanation Prompts Overcome Seductive Details? A Multimedia Study." Educational Technology &amp; Society 20, no. 4 : 47 – 57. https://<ulink href="http://www.jstor.org/stable/26229204">www.jstor.org/stable/26229204</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, C., Y. Li, H. Yang, X. Wang, X. Li, and B. Jing. 2024. " The Greater the Interaction, the Stronger the Learning Performance? Examining Pedagogical Agents' Interactive Presence in Instructional Videos." Applied Cognitive Psychology 38, no. 5 : e4242.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zhang, Y., J. Yang, C. Dai, and Z. Pi. 2024. " Students' Strategy Preference Moderates Effects of Open or Focused Self‐Explanation Prompts on Learning From Video Lectures." Educational Technology &amp; Society 27, no. 1 : 84 – 99. https://doi.org/10.30191/ETS.202401_27(1).RP06.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Simon A. Schriek; Kirsten Berthold and Markus H. Hefter</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref18"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref55"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref65"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib192" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib101" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib97" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib146" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib195" firstref="ref93"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib119" firstref="ref95"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref109"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref110"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref112"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref114"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref118"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref120"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref122"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref123"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref124"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref125"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref126"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref131"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref132"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref133"></nolink> |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: eric DbLabel: ERIC An: EJ1468312 AccessLevel: 3 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Retrospective Focus Prompts Facilitate Learning from Video Tutorials for Technical Apprenticeship – Name: Language Label: Language Group: Lang Data: English – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Simon+A%2E+Schriek%22">Simon A. Schriek</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0007-9104-3426">0009-0007-9104-3426</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Kirsten+Berthold%22">Kirsten Berthold</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Markus+H%2E+Hefter%22">Markus H. Hefter</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1152-6297">0000-0003-1152-6297</externalLink>) – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Applied+Cognitive+Psychology%22"><i>Applied Cognitive Psychology</i></searchLink>. 2025 39(2). – Name: Avail Label: Availability Group: Avail Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us – Name: PeerReviewed Label: Peer Reviewed Group: SrcInfo Data: Y – Name: Pages Label: Page Count Group: Src Data: 13 – Name: DatePubCY Label: Publication Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: TypeDocument Label: Document Type Group: TypDoc Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research – Name: Subject Label: Descriptors Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Video+Technology%22">Video Technology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Tutorial+Programs%22">Tutorial Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Apprenticeships%22">Apprenticeships</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Prompting%22">Prompting</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Sequential+Approach%22">Sequential Approach</searchLink> – Name: DOI Label: DOI Group: ID Data: 10.1002/acp.70049 – Name: ISSN Label: ISSN Group: ISSN Data: 0888-4080<br />1099-0720 – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Although the demand for video tutorials has risen recently in the field of technical apprenticeship, they can overtax learners, especially novices. Enhancing video tutorials with prompts is a potential support measure to ensure learners focus on the key aspects of learning content. However, open questions remain concerning the prompt type and presentation mode. We thus investigated the effectiveness of different prompt types (retrospective vs. anticipatory vs. unfocused vs. no prompt) and presentation modes (video vs. still shots and text) in a 4 × 2-factorial experiment (N = 205). We used original industrial video tutorials and assessed learning processes (e.g., prompt answers) and outcomes (e.g., knowledge about working steps). Results show that retrospective prompts are the most effective prompts for our novice sample. Furthermore, learning processes mediated the prompt effect on learning outcomes--regardless of the presentation mode. Our findings underscore the importance of retrospectively focusing on working steps when learning with video tutorials. – Name: AbstractInfo Label: Abstractor Group: Ab Data: As Provided – Name: DateEntry Label: Entry Date Group: Date Data: 2025 – Name: AN Label: Accession Number Group: ID Data: EJ1468312 |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1468312 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1002/acp.70049 Languages: – Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 13 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Video Technology Type: general – SubjectFull: Tutorial Programs Type: general – SubjectFull: Apprenticeships Type: general – SubjectFull: Prompting Type: general – SubjectFull: Sequential Approach Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Retrospective Focus Prompts Facilitate Learning from Video Tutorials for Technical Apprenticeship Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Simon A. Schriek – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Kirsten Berthold – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Markus H. Hefter IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 03 Type: published Y: 2025 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 0888-4080 – Type: issn-electronic Value: 1099-0720 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 39 – Type: issue Value: 2 Titles: – TitleFull: Applied Cognitive Psychology Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
