519082

research-article2014
JMEXXX10.1177/1052562913519082Journal of Management EducationFee and Budde-Sung

Research
Journal of Management Education
2014, Vol. 38(6) 843­–874
Using Video Effectively © The Author(s) 2014
Reprints and permissions:
in Diverse Classes: What sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1052562913519082
Students Want jme.sagepub.com

Anthony Fee1 and Amanda E. K. Budde-Sung2

Abstract
This article presents the findings of an exploratory study into the perceptions
of a culturally and linguistically diverse cohort of management students (n =
236) about the use of video as a teaching and learning tool. The results show
that while students are generally favorable toward audiovisual materials, the
choice of content, how the medium is used, and the types of supporting
pedagogical activities all influence the students’ perceived learning and
enjoyment. Notably, students from non-English-speaking backgrounds
reported different benefits and challenges to their native English-speaking
classmates. We use the findings to outline some practical guidelines for
instructors about the most effective ways of using video as a pedagogical
tool with diverse classes.

Keywords
video, teaching, diversity, non-English speaking, learning outcomes,
management, cross-cultural

Instructional video content has been a mainstay of management education for

decades. While researchers have long been interested in the use of video as a
teaching tool (e.g., Gallos, 1993), recent years have seen somewhat of a

1University of Technology Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

2University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Anthony Fee, University of Technology Sydney, UTS Business School, Bldg 5, Lvl 4, Rm 4.11,
Sydney, New South Wales 2007, Australia.
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
844 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

renaissance in the literature promoting the potential benefits of video in man-

agement education (Comer & Holbrook, 2012; Kenworthy-U’Ren &
Erickson, 2009). It is likely that both demand and supply factors have con-
tributed to this. On the demand side, students who are “digital natives,” hav-
ing grown up with the Internet and visual multimedia, are assumed to be
more responsive to this form of learning than earlier generations (Prensky,
2005), and so instructors are more inclined to see video as a valuable comple-
ment to the curriculum. On the supply side, the ready availability of digital
video content via social media sources like YouTube and Vimeo, as well as
readymade video cases that nowadays accompany academic textbooks, have
made it easier to find appropriate sources. An additional, more practical, fac-
tor is the relative ease with which digital video can be created, cued, edited,
and integrated seamlessly into the modern classroom. In short, it has never
been easier for instructors to access, use, and manipulate video materials for
teaching.
Within this context, while practitioners are keen to share their experiences
and advice on the use of video in management education (Holbrook, 2007;
Huczynski & Buchanan, 2004), empirical research into students’ responses to
teaching techniques in general, and the use of multimedia in particular, is
limited (Tang & Austin, 2009). Moreover, most pedagogical explorations of
the use of video tend to assume a cultural and linguistic homogeneity that is
not representative of contemporary management classrooms (Daglish &
Evans, 2008; OECD, 2012). With instructors expected to be sensitive to
learners’ needs, the changing demographic structure of classes, and the likely
valuable insights to be gleaned from speaking with “digital native” learners,
this represents an important gap in the literature.
The current study aims to fill this void by exploring the perceptions of a
diverse cohort of management students about the use of video materials in
teaching and learning. Our aim was to investigate students’ perceptions about
the impacts of using video clips within lectures, including students’ percep-
tions of how these influenced their learning, to identify any differences
among groups of students, and to unearth the students’ own ideas about how
instructors could optimize the benefits of using video in their classes.
We present our research as follows. First, extant literature into the impact
of video on students’ learning is reviewed and critiqued. Next, details of the
current study are outlined. This is followed by a description and analysis of
the study’s key findings in relation to existing literature. Finally, the study’s
implications are discussed and, from this, a series of practical suggestions
made about how instructors might deploy the study’s findings in their use of
video materials.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 845

Literature Review
We use the term video to refer to all audiovisual teaching materials that can
be used to enhance the learning experience, including digital and nondigital
video files (e.g., Internet content like YouTube clips), as well as more tradi-
tional instructional materials or repurposed DVD content (i.e., video created
for a different purpose).
The vast majority of literature relating to the use of video in management
education is descriptive, presenting instructors’ accounts of how video could
or should be used, and the potential benefits derived from this, typically
based on the authors’ substantial experiences using video and other technolo-
gies (Bumpas, 2005; Holbrook, 2007; Huczynski & Buchanan, 2004; Liedtka,
2001; Tyler, Anderson, & Tyler, 2009). By way of example, Holbrook (2009)
details the way in which a single movie (Remember the Titans) can be used
as the foundation for an entire management (organizational behavior) course.
Similarly, empirical studies about the use of video tend to be instructor- rather
than student-focused. Wilkinson (2007, p. 5), for instance, studied the views
of “expert educational theorists and practitioners” about the perceived advan-
tages of using video to develop intercultural sensitivity. Many of these stud-
ies extol the benefits of video, pointing to their attractiveness to (i.e.,
enjoyment by) young students, who are believed to be especially receptive to
video content (Prensky, 2005). Supporting this, a survey comparing the use
of a range of teaching techniques, including PowerPoint lecture and video,
found that younger students and male students reported greater enjoyment
(but not necessarily learning) from video; in contrast, older students reported
preferring and learning more from lectures (Tang & Austin, 2009).
Theoretical rationales for the efficacy of video are absent from most stud-
ies. Perhaps the theory of learning (and instruction) that comes closest to
explaining the literature on teaching with video is Mayer’s (2009) cognitive
theory of multimedia learning. Developed over a number of years, and view-
ing learning as a process of knowledge construction (e.g., Piaget, 1955),
Mayer argues that multimedia instruction—any teaching materials that
include words and pictures—leads to better learning outcomes than just
words or pictures alone. According to Mayer, multimedia materials achieve
this by aiding the sense-making process through activating both verbal and
visual cognitive processes simultaneously. The multiple channels of delivery,
representation of ideas, and sensory stimulation provided by multimedia lead
to higher cognitive activity and therefore enhanced retention and understand-
ing of content. Based on a barrage of short-term experimental studies, most
of which involve the teaching of complex, yet highly explicit, content to

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
846 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

Table 1. Mayer’s Principles of Multimedia Design.

Principle Summary
Reducing 1. Coherence principle Exclude extraneous words, pictures,
extraneous and sounds
processing 2. Signaling principle Add cues that highlight the
organization of the essential material
3. Redundancy principle Avoid adding on-screen text to
graphics and narration
4. Spatial contiguity Present corresponding words and
principle pictures near each other on a page
or screen
5. Temporal contiguity Present corresponding words and
principle pictures simultaneously rather than
successively
Managing 6. Segmenting principle Present multimedia lessons in user-
essential paced segments rather than as a
processing continuous unit
7. Pretraining principle Preteach the name and characteristics
of main concepts
8. Modality principle Use narration rather than on-screen
text to present words
Fostering 9. Multimedia principle Use words and pictures rather than
generative words alone
processing 10. Personalization Use words in a conversational rather
principle than formal style

Source. Mayer (2008, 2009).

students (Mayer, 2008; Mayer & Anderson, 1991), Mayer and colleagues
identify 10 principles for using multimedia effectively. These principles,
summarized in Table 1, outline how to use multimedia materials in order to
help students by minimizing excessive information processing (“reduce
extraneous processing,” Principles 1-5), simplifying how essential informa-
tion is processed (“manage essential processing,” Principles 6-8), and mak-
ing sense of, organizing, and integrating the new information (“foster
generative processing,” Principles 9 and 10).
Empirical support for the efficacy of video to enhance overall learning and
information retention is mixed (Campbell, Goldman, Boccia, & Skinner,
2004), and as Mayer’s work makes clear, the value of video is contingent on
a range of factors, including the way it is used. For instance, superfluous
multimedia content not critical to the core curriculum can impede learning by
overloading students and distracting energy and attention (extraneous

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 847

cognitive processing; Mayer 2009). That is, the overuse of technology may
detract from, rather than assist, learning and retention.
A second determinant of the efficacy of video is the experiences and pref-
erences of learners, which effectively filter how and what is learned. While
instructors are advised to adjust teaching approaches to suit students’ “differ-
ences in ability, style, or preferences” (Jonassen & Grabowski, 1993, p. 19),
a challenge to this is the great diversity that has emerged from the globaliza-
tion of college campuses. Higher education may be one of the most global-
ized sectors in the world. Students and instructors are more mobile than ever
(OECD, 2012; Saltmarsh & Swirski, 2010), and in many countries students
can expect to be taught by faculty, and to study with peers, from a number of
different cultural and linguistic backgrounds, especially in business faculties
(Halevi & Moed, 2012; OECD, 2012).
The intersection of culture, language, pedagogy, and learning outcomes is
complex and continues to be the focus of studies from a range of perspec-
tives. Researchers have examined the impact of diversity on peer relation-
ships among students (e.g., in-/out-group behavior, prejudice), the
instructor–student relationship (e.g., expectations about roles), and the way
that students engage with particular instructional methods (e.g., Holtbrügge
& Mohr, 2010; Kelly, 2009; Rodrigues, 2005). For instance, differences exist
in expectations about whether the class is teacher- or student-centered (Singh,
2005), the nature and extent of collaborative learning (Ramburuth &
McCormick, 2001), how learners engage with content, and the type of learn-
ing strategies employed (Zhu, Valcke, & Schellens, 2008).
Language-related issues like understanding spoken words and accents,
and communicating confidently with peers and lecturers, are frequently iden-
tified as “problematic” aspects of the learning environment for students from
non-English-speaking backgrounds (NESBs; Lee, 1997; Lin & Yi, 1997;
Robertson, Line, Jones, & Thomas, 2000). Difficulties using or understand-
ing the language of instruction can impede comprehension, make note-taking
more challenging, reduce in-class participation, and inhibit integration with
peers (e.g., Hills & Thom, 2005; Kingston & Forland, 2008; Tatar, 2005),
adding up to 40% to a student’s weekly study period (Hellsten & Prescott,
2004). It can also contribute to mistrust, miscommunication, and perceived
inequity that can emerge between NESBs and native English speakers
(Milner, 2010).
Returning to the use of video (and multimedia more broadly), much of the
literature fails to acknowledge the diversity that exists in contemporary class-
rooms. For instance, Mayer’s principles for using multimedia materials
ignore learners’ language capabilities or cultural background. Similarly,
Hunt’s (2001, pp. 639-640) assumption that learners will be “quite familiar

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
848 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

with the characters and typical situations encountered” in television programs

like M*A*S*H and Gilligan’s Island may not hold in contemporary business
schools.
Aside from classrooms where language learning is the explicit objective
(e.g., Hayati & Mohmedi, 2011), studies that examine the use of video and
students’ culture and/or language competence are rare. To date, they have
tended to involve cross-cultural comparisons of the efficacy of different
instructional methods, typically via survey-based ratings. Clarke and Flaherty
(2002), for instance, found that Chinese MBA students rated video cases
more favorably than students from the United States and the United Kingdom.
The authors attributed this to the fact that in the latter countries, video was, at
the time, frequently associated with leisure rather than with learning, but for
Chinese students it offered “an uncensored glimpse of the Western business
practices” (Clark & Flaherty, 2002, p. 238). In contrast, a more recent study
showed that students from the United States evaluated video significantly
more favorably than students from the United Kingdom or Middle Eastern
countries (Mahrous & Ahmed, 2010).
These and similar studies to date, however, are limited in several impor-
tant ways. First, their use of deductive research designs and emphasis on
comparing a breadth of teaching tools, rather than focusing specifically on
video, limits the richness of findings relevant to the choice and use of video
content. By way of example, the studies of Clarke and Flaherty (2002) and
Mahrous and Ahmed (2010) compare 14 and 21 different teaching tools,
respectively; neither devotes more than half a page to discussing the findings
relating to video. Additionally, much discussion on the use of video materials
assumes that student cohorts are culturally and linguistically homogeneous,
despite the fact that classrooms, like societies, are increasingly heteroge-
neous (Daglish & Evans, 2008). For instance, learners’ native language or
competence in the language of instruction is rarely addressed directly in
cross-cultural comparisons like those summarized above. In short, the voices
of students about whether (and how) video can contribute toward their learn-
ing are largely missing from current research, especially in diverse classes.
These limitations hamper our understanding of the full impact of using video
materials in management education.
To address these gaps in our knowledge, the current study explores the
perceptions of a sample of management students from a range of backgrounds
toward the use of video in class. Specifically, the study addresses three
research questions:

Research Question 1: How does the use of audiovisual materials influ-

ence students’ perceptions of learning and engagement?

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 849

Research Question 2: In what ways do individual differences in language

competence, culture, age, and gender influence students’ perceptions of
audiovisual materials?
Research Question 3: How can instructors use audiovisual materials
more effectively in diverse classes?

Research Methodology
Research Design and Sample
Given the lack of empirical research addressing these questions, the study
was designed as an inductive exploration. Qualitative data were collected in
two stages: end of semester written surveys, followed by a series of semis-
tructured interviews and focus groups. In line with the Australian
Government’s National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving
Humans, all aspects of the study were approved by the University’s Human
Research Ethics Committee. Participation was entirely voluntary and was
conditional on students signing a written consent form that made it clear that
they could withdraw from the study at any stage.

Surveys. Written surveys were administered at the end of 13-week cross-cul-

tural management courses in which video was used in a range of ways as a
structured part of the syllabus. The surveys contained two open-response
questions:

1. How did the use of video in class impact your learning (either posi-
tively or negatively)? Please provide comments here.
2. What suggestions could you make to improve the effectiveness of the
use of video (e.g., how the videos were used, the instructions given,
the type of videos shown)? Please provide any suggestions below.

Both questions were followed by blank spaces for students to write

responses. Five additional questions related to demographic data: (a) my
native language is English (yes/no), (b) I am an international student (yes/
no), (c) home country, (d) gender, and (e) age group (18-19, 20-22, 23-25,
over 25). All questions were pilot tested with a sample of students and tutors.
No inducements were offered to participants. Surveys and “Participant
Information Sheets” were distributed to students in the penultimate seminar
(Week 12 of 13) after a full disclosure of the research topic, assurances of
anonymity of responses, and the option not to participate in the research with-
out penalty.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
850 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

Table 2. Characteristics of Respondents.

n (%) n (%)
Country Gender
Australia 84 (36) Male 97 (41)
People’s Republic 58 (25) Female 139 (59)
of China (including
Hong Kong)
Singapore 12 (5) Age (years)
United States of 10 (4) 18-19 10 (4)
America
Germany 10 (4) 20-22 158 (67)
Sweden 7 (3) 23-25 45 (19)
South Korea 7 (3) 25+ 23 (10)
United Kingdom 5 (2) First language
Thailand 5 (2) English 121 (51)
Malaysia 5 (2) Language other 115 (49)
than English
Other 33 (14) Total 236

The sample for this stage comprised undergraduate management students

at two large Australian universities. A total of 236 respondents provided the
data, representing a response rate of 75%. Table 2, which provides details of
the sample, shows that 59% were female, and 86% were aged from 20-25
years. A total of 29 home countries were represented, primarily Australia (n =
84, 36%) and the People’s Republic of China (PRC; n = 58, 25%). Just over
half (n = 121, 51%) identified as native speakers of English, which was the
language of instruction in these classes. Fifty nine percent (59%) identified
themselves as international students.

Interviews and Focus Groups. Interviews and focus groups with a subsample of
students were used to collect more expansive input relating to themes pre-
sented in survey responses. The convenience sample comprised 17 students
from seven nationalities who responded to a request to participate; two focus
groups, each comprising four members; and nine individual interviews.
Focus groups lasted approximately 90 minutes and aimed to identify partici-
pants’ public attitudes, perceptions, and responses to the survey data and to
explore similarities and differences in participants’ responses (Michell,
1999). The researchers acted primarily as moderators, seeding discussion
with open questions from a prepared list while encouraging participants to
interrogate, challenge, and support views presented by others (Zikmund,

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 851

1997). In contrast to the focus groups, individual interviews were designed to

explore respondents’ personal perceptions in much greater depth. Interviews
lasted from 20 to 60 minutes. Both focus groups and seven of the nine inter-
views were audio recorded and transcribed in full; for the two remaining
interviews, detailed contemporaneous notes were taken and later typed.
Data collection took place after students’ results had been finalized and
after the researchers had completed an initial analysis of the survey responses.
Thus, while the schedules mirrored the open-response survey questions,
themes that had been identified from the survey responses were explored in
some detail and, in some cases, put directly to participants. Participants
received a movie pass in exchange for their participation in this stage.

Research Context
Inductive research enables investigators to explore a phenomenon in close
proximity (Zalan & Lewis, 2004) and to capture the complexity and reality of
the immediate context (Miles & Huberman, 1994). Thus, the circumstance in
which the data emerge is critical to the way in which they are interpreted.
Because our research questions related to the attitudes of respondents toward
video used in specific classes, we briefly outline the ways in which video
materials were used by instructors in these classes.
Respondents in this study undertook a cross-cultural management class as
part of an undergraduate business degree. Content included an introduction to
culture and cultural differences, cross-cultural psychology, and cultural intel-
ligence, as well as the impact of these on management functions like com-
munication, negotiation, and conflict resolution. Much of the content related
to internal psychological concepts (e.g., stereotyping, cognitive categoriza-
tion, cultural values) that were both highly theoretical and new to most stu-
dents, whose training to date had been in more traditional business subjects.
Video clips were used throughout the semester in a variety of ways to support
other teaching methods like traditional lectures, tutorial discussions, role
plays, and prescribed readings. Much, although not all, of the content that
was used came from video extracts that showed unscripted or “authentic”
interpersonal business interactions, rather than scripted drama or instruc-
tional videos. These were extracted from professionally produced documen-
tary films and reality television.1 The two main uses of video were the
following.

1. Demonstrating or supporting concepts being learned. For instance,

after introducing or explaining a theoretical concept in class, a video
extract would be shown that illustrates the concept. Thus, students

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
852 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

saw a visual model or exemplar of the concept “in action.” These

extracts were typically 30 to 120 seconds in duration.
2. Being the focus of in-class analysis, discussion, or reflection. In these
situations, students were asked to observe a video extract (typically
3-7 minutes) and analyze the content using theoretical concepts cov-
ered in class (e.g., watching an interpersonal interaction for evidence
of cultural values). This individual analysis was typically followed by
small group discussions and analysis.

In addition to these methods, one class used an extended video as the

object of a written assessment item. A full 80-minute movie was shown in
class (The Men Who Would Conquer China, 2006). Students were required to
submit a written assignment based on their observation of concepts relevant
to the subject. Table 3 identifies some of the video material from which
extracts were shown in these classes.

Data Analysis
Data were analyzed using content analysis, a process of reducing and struc-
turing text by identifying, coding, and classifying it into categories (Patton,
2002). Content analysis requires researchers to systematically and objec-
tively identify patterns and characteristics in the data by labeling and classi-
fying strings of text relating to a single theme. This frequently results in data
being quantified (Silverman & Marvasti, 2008).
The content analysis process involved several steps and took cues from
procedures suggested by prominent researchers (Eisenhardt, 1989; Silverman
& Marvasti, 2008). The software program QSR NVivo 9 was used to assist in
data management and analysis. First, our initial review of the data led us to
identify four mutually exclusive descriptive categories that were broadly
aligned to the study’s purpose: (a) positive impacts of using video in class, (b)
negative impacts of using video in class, (c) perceived learning outcomes
attributed to video, and (d) suggestions for instructors about the use of video.
The second step involved thematically coding responses within each cate-
gory. This analysis was fundamentally inductive, although in several instances
tertiary level themes drawn from our review of the literature were brought to
the data. By way of example, Wilkinson’s (2007) categories “Evocative,
grabs and holds attention, power affect” and “Realism/like real life” were the
starting points for our categories “Was engaging (more vivid, persuasive,
greater attention)” and “Provided real-life example,” respectively. However,
themes emerging from the data led to some categories being merged or split,
a process that frequently involved recoding. It also led to the creation of three
main categories related to the nature of video that are used in the “Findings”

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 853

Table 3. Examples of Video Content Used in Class.

Category Examples
Documentary film All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace (2011)
China Blue (2005)
Diverted to Delhi (2003)
India Reborn (2009)
Living with Corruption (2008)
Letters to Ali (2004)
Lost Boys of Sudan (2003)
Modern Day Slaves (2010)
Outsourced (SBS Independent, documentary) (2006)
She’ll Be Right, Boss (2003)
Sicko (2007)
The Ambassador (2011)
The Men Who Would Conquer China (2006)
The Queen of Versailles (2012)
Where Are You Taking Me? (2010)
Yen for a Dollar (2002)
Reality television Black. White (2006)
Go Back to Where you Came From (2011)
How Racist Are You? (2009)
Millionaires’ Mission (2007)
Project Inspire Africa (2011)
Other motion Babel (2006)
pictures (non- Crash (2004)
documentary) Floating Life (1996)
Gandhi (1982)
In a Better World (2010)
Lost in Translation (2003)
Marking Time (2003)
Outsourced (ShadowCatcher Entertainment, motion
picture) (2006)
The Gods Must Be Crazy (1980)
Culture training Australian Eye: Blue Eyed Brown Eyed (2002)
videos A Portable Life (1981)
Going International series (e.g., “Beyond culture shock,”
“Welcome home, stranger”) (1983)
Indecently Exposed (2004)

section, namely, video content, video usage, and video format. To ensure that
the origins of groups could be traced, previous categories were retained in
earlier versions of databases. The quantification of data into categories

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
854 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

enabled comparisons between groups using statistical methods (Pearson’s

chi-square) and so provided supplementary and confirmatory analysis about
the patterns of responses reported by different groups of students. Finally,
relationships within and across categories, as well as between demographic
categories, were explored. Some of this involved mapping relationships visu-
ally. The basic units of coding were sentences or bullet point clauses; these
ranged in length from five words to several sentences.
Two researchers worked jointly on initial categorization from which
descriptive themes were developed. This led to the creation of a detailed cod-
ing scheme, which provided the basis for the subsequent classification. The
researchers, working independently from the scheme, coded the data. An ini-
tial sample comprising 20% of the total responses (45 respondents, 122 coded
items) was double-coded. The coding scheme proved to be robust, with an
interrater reliability of 0.93 (identical coding of 113/122 items). In line with
Miles and Huberman’s (1994) suggestion, the two coders reviewed and dis-
cussed the outcomes. This process enabled categories to be defined more
precisely and so increased the confidence in the reliability of the coding
scheme. Consequently, the researchers agreed on the categorization of all 122
items, which are included in the analysis.

Findings
In total, 236 usable survey responses were received, providing 571 coded
items for analysis (average 2.4 per respondent). Students from English speak-
ing backgrounds (ESBs) tended to provide more, and more detailed, responses
than nonnative English speakers. The bulk of students’ responses related to
their perceptions of the positive impacts of video (245 responses, 61% of all
responses), with negative impacts of video (60 responses, 15%), and sugges-
tions for using video in class (100 responses, 25%) comprising smaller pro-
portions. Table 4 further delineates the data according to three features of
video with which the responses were concerned: (a) the content of the video
materials used (video content; 173 responses, 43%), (b) the way in which
video was used in the classes (video usage; 135 responses, 33%), and (c) the
nature of the medium itself, usually framed in comparison to other teaching
mediums (video medium; 97 responses, 24%).
In addition to the 405 responses in Table 4, students reported 166 learning
outcomes that they attributed to the video used in class. These are summa-
rized in Table 5, which shows that 95% of reported learning outcomes related
to increased understanding of subject concepts.
Next we address each of the research questions separately, drawing on the
data in Tables 4 and 5.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
 Table 4. Students’ Perceptions About the Use of Video.
Video content n (%a) Video usage n (%a) Video medium n (%a)

Positive Provided a real-life example (linked theory 60 (15) Broke up the class 33 (8) Was interesting (enjoyable); 61 (15)
impact (245 to real life) dynamism not found in
responses, readings
61%) Helped clarify a concept (demonstrated a 27 (7) Made the class more interactive 16 (4) Was engaging (more vivid, 36 (9)
concept more clearly than text/lecture) persuasive, greater attention)
Introduced a variety of different cultures/ 10 (2) Use as an assessment item (opportunity 2 (0) — —
perspectives, including experts to apply concepts in practical way)
Subtotal 97 (24) Subtotal 51 (12) Subtotal 97 (24)
Negative Difficult to understand/follow 12 (3) Length of video (too long/short) 11 (3) — —
impact (60 Uninteresting or irrelevant (old, corny, 10 (2) Technical difficulties 10 (2)
responses, cliché, irrelevant)
15%) Stated the obvious, simply repeated lecture 5 (1) Use as an assessment activity (too easy or 5 (1)
too stressful)
Not unique (no more helpful than lecture) 5 (1) Excuse not to teach (lecturer lazy) 2 (0)
Subtotal 32 (8) Subtotal 28 (7) Subtotal 0 (0)
Suggestions Choose content that is focused (to the 13 (3) Make video available to students outside 14 (3) — —
(100 point, targeted, succinct) lecture (e.g., online)
responses, Choose content that is easy to understand 10 (2) Provide postviewing debrief (explain key 13 (3)
25%) and relate to points, link to lecture, provide notes)
Choose a mixture of content (e.g., 9 (2) Include subtitles 12 (3)
professional experts, educational;
different cultures)
Integrate video with lecture and course 7 (2) Use video as basis for analysis, discussion 6 (1)
content
Other (e.g., recent and relevant, interesting, 5 (1) Provide information before viewing 5 (1)

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
humorous) (context, importance, duration)
Other (avoid overuse, split up into parts, 6 (1)
check technical setup, use in exams)
Subtotal 44 (11) Subtotal 56 (14) Subtotal 0 (0)
Total 173 (43) 135 (33) 97 (24)

855
a. This represents the percentage of all responses reported in this table. Percentages may not sum to 100% due to rounding.
856 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

Table 5. Learning Outcomes Attributed to Video.

Learning outcome n %
Understanding of concepts 157 95
Increased understanding of practical application of theory 75 45
(puts theory into context)
Increased understanding generally (e.g., deeper 34 21
understanding)
Helped remember material (easy to recall, reinforced in 29 18
mind)
New perspective of content (e.g., outsiders’ perspective, 18 11
empathy with others, importance of situation)
Other 9 5
Increased motivation to learn about the topic 5 3
Awareness of appropriate behaviors 4 2
Total 166 100

Research Question 1: The Influence of Video on Students’

Perceived Learning and Engagement
Responses about the benefits of video (i.e., positive impact) were more than
four times more frequent than responses about the negative impact of video
(245 compared with 60). As Table 4 shows, all responses that commented on
the video medium were positive; students attributed negative impacts exclu-
sively to the content that we chose and the way in which we used video in
class. Overall, students perceived that video contributed to both their learning
from and enjoyment of the course.

Perceived Learning Outcomes. Table 5 shows that the primary learning out-
come attributed to video was increased cognitive understanding of course
concepts. While some responses were nonspecific (e.g., “Enhances under-
standing of topic discussed,” respondent from Spain), the majority of
responses in this category specified the role of video in developing under-
standing of the practical application of concepts (75 responses, 55% of learn-
ing outcomes), as the following exemplify:

The use of multimedia gave me new insight into the practical applications of
this course content. (Australia)

Helped me understand theoretical concepts in a more practical way.

(Philippines)

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 857

Students offered two main reasons for why video was so helpful in promoting
understanding. In terms of frequency of survey responses, students’ main
appreciation was the way video could present “real-life” examples of con-
cepts (60 responses, or 14% of all responses). For example:

It made a connection between theory and real life business. (Denmark)

I had a deeper understanding due to real life demonstrations in the video of

what was happening. (United Kingdom)

When this finding was explored in detail, interviewees highlighted the ability
of the video medium to illustrate practical examples of theoretical “textbook”
concepts in a way that is easily understood. One interviewee described the
benefits of video in this way:

It giv(es) the theory more grounding. Words on a page or on a PowerPoint can

be hard to grasp sometimes. A well-chosen video example is just so (more
easily) digested. (The difference between the mediums) is so obvious. (New
Zealand)

Mayer (2009) argues that one of the main benefits of multimedia materials
is through representing knowledge in qualitatively different ways. This
“broader array of communication signals” (Wilkinson, 2007, p. 5) appears to
have been a particularly potent scaffold that helped students understand some
of the theories covered in this class, which, by nature, could be viewed as
quite abstract and intangible when presented in purely verbal form:

The topics we were studying, they were quite challenging to me, so it did help
to have (the content) presented in a different way. (Colombia)

Some emotion/behaviors would be shown more clearly in video rather than just
text format. (Australia)

An additional factor that facilitated students’ understanding came from the

use of authentic (unscripted) content, which appears to have been particularly
beneficial for these undergraduate students, most of whom had little substan-
tive work experience:

I find (authentic content) to be the most effective conveyor of real-life. Because

they are real people doing real stuff. Seeing a documentary is as close as you
can get to being there. (Australia, Focus Group 1)

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
858 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

Videos usually relate to real business cases which can help me better understand
and know how to use the theory I learnt. (PRC)

(Documentary) makes it applicable to life, not just theory. (Singapore)

Other authors have highlighted the benefits of the authenticity provided by

documentary video (Comer & Holbrook, 2012; Kenworthy-U’Ren &
Erickson, 2009), and students’ responses in our study support this view. It is
also likely that authentic materials provide more realistic visual models that
facilitated retention (Bandura, 1977), an essential requirement for learning,
and a point noted by 29 respondents (18% of learning outcomes):

Just as how I remember scenes of a movie compared to plain words, video lasts
longer in your memory. (Malaysia)

Those “stereotype” examples (from the motion picture Crash) were okay, they
were fun but to be honest they were not very realistic to me. The (examples
from documentary footage) were so much better . . . it’s easier to imagine those
images (when) we will need them. (Bangladesh, Interview)

Enjoyment and Engagement. Table 4 shows that students felt that the video
medium contributed to classes being more interesting (61 responses, 15% of
all responses) and/or more engaging (36 responses, 9%). Responses in this
category were frequently presented in contrast to other teaching approaches
that students had experienced, suggesting that they attributed the positive
impact to the inherent nature of the medium, rather than the video content or
usage. The word “fun” was common in responses:

I thought the video was a fun way to engage in the learning process. (Australia)

More fun, less routine. (Germany)

Makes thing that is normally boring to be much more fun. (PRC)

Some evidence emerged that students’ enjoyment of video content related to

the duration of individual clips and the frequency that video was used. A small
number of students (3, all from ESBs) felt that video was used too frequently
in class, thus reducing the “novelty” and so enjoyment. Moreover, overly long
video clips contributed to disengagement (11 responses, 3%), and students
tended to suggest that short, focused video extracts were more effective. When
this issue was explored in the focus groups and interviews, consistent with

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 859

Mayer’s (2009) segmenting principle, students believed that longer videos

should be broken up and shown in discrete sections, interspersed with discus-
sion or other activities, and linked to specific learning points. In terms of an
ideal duration, 3 to 5 minutes was suggested as optimal (“You do want to be
able to rewind or go back and pause,” “Shorter excerpts provide the same
effect and allow time for discussion”).
Other responses in this category focused on the format’s ability to attract
and retain attention through, for example, aiding concentration by punctuat-
ing other teaching methods (“Short video clips in between lecture slides were
very helpful, especially in the beginning when concepts were new”—USA).
The videos appear to have been especially engaging when followed by in-
class discussion and analysis. Sixteen students (4%) reported that the video
made the class more interactive:

Videos make students raise their voice and discuss in class. (PRC)

The video examples made the issues discussed easier to relate to. (Denmark)

You need to use it as the medium for further discussion. (Australia, Focus
Group 1)

In considering the use of video for analysis and discussion, several interview-
ees supported the notion that the videos effectively create an “empathy expe-
rience.” For instance, strong emotional reactions were reported to a video
extract used in both classes, which showed cross-cultural business interac-
tions during which several cultural mistakes were made:

One video was particularly helpful; it showed two businessmen from different
cultures working on a deal. Their frustrations throughout the video were able to
be seen in a way that made them more understandable. Things like frustration
are things we can read about, but not really understand, until we see it in video
format. (USA)

(that video) was “cringeworthy” the whole way through. I could not ever
imagine doing what he was doing. (Australia, Focus Group 1)

Another explained it this way:

The videos could show within a few minutes what might have taken much
longer to explain. To be honest, I prefer to apply and exercise learned knowledge
to videos rather than to texts or just to dry presentations. (Germany, Interview)

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
860 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

The consensus in both focus groups was that video contributed to greater
interactivity by providing a shared experience that all students could bring a
point of view to, as opposed to personal experiences that may be difficult for
others to relate to. One participant captured the groups’ sentiments in the fol-
lowing observation:

I think in video you pick up more things . . . if everybody in class is talking

about (their personal experiences, not a video) there are a million different
images going through each person’s head. But when you have video you can
see so much more and absorb so much more and everybody’s on the same
track. (Australia, Focus Group 2)

This “common platform for discussion” may be particularly valuable when

students have difficulty visualizing or empathizing with the experiences
shared by peers because of their different cultural backgrounds (Milner,
2010). On this point, it is worth noting that 9 of the 18 responses reporting the
learning outcome “new perspective of content” commented on the positive
impact of the interactive nature of video, suggesting that some of this benefit
stemmed from the postviewing discussion:

Some people are quite shy . . . (watching video) made people speak up more. .
. . I think it makes it better for everyone . . . you get to talk to other people and
hear other people’s views and perspectives. (PRC)

Research Question 2: The Impact of Individual Differences on

Perceptions of Video
When comparing the patterns of responses presented by different groups of
students, the strongest distinctions emerged between students based on their
native language. Students from ESBs and NESBs reported different responses
to several features of the video. Most noticeably, NESBs were more likely
than ESBs to report difficulty understanding the content of video (10/2
responses respectively); for instance:

Sometimes difficult to understand due to the language barrier. (PRC)

As English is not my first language, sometimes it was hard to understand the

videos properly. (Korea)

A Pearson’s chi-square test revealed that NESB’s were 5.67 times more
likely to report difficulty understanding the video content than ESB’s, a dif-
ference that is statistically significant (χ2(1) = 6.06, p = .02 two-sided, odds

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 861

ratio = 5.67).2 While most responses, like the examples above, related to lan-
guage comprehension, it was also the context of videos that created chal-
lenges, as the following interview response makes clear:

When we see or discuss a video in class, sometimes students were laughing

about a joke or a particular picture in the video. Most time I have no idea about
it. Sometimes it (is) because I do not understand the meaning of the word, and
sometimes I know the words but I do not get the laughing points. (PRC)

Differences also existed in relation to the perceived benefits of video. For

NESBs, the main benefit of the video was its ability to clarify concepts or
theories studied in class in ways that text or in class descriptions could not
(15 responses):

After reading the theory, it is helpful to watch a movie to get a real life
perspective and better understand the theory. (Sweden)

Give me reality example to know what is this concept, give me deeper

understanding. (PRC)

In contrast, ESBs (16 of 18 responses) were 15 times more likely to appreci-

ate the role of video to introduce a different perspective or view on the con-
tent (χ2(1) = 11.46, p = .00 two-sided, odds ratio = 15.05):

Positive: chance to view scenario from an outside perspective. (Australia)

Perspectives from professionals who deal with these issues helps put things in
perspective. (Australia)

Made me see things more clearly and gather a variety of different perspectives.
(Australia)

These findings present an interesting dilemma for instructors. On the one hand,
using video to provide the clarity sought by NESBs requires selecting video
material with a clear and specific relationship to the concept (“Use videos that
(are) closely related to the course content, for example, explain a concept and
show an example through the video”—PRC). On the other hand, the added
perspective sought by ESBs suggests video that extends, rather than reinforces,
content is preferred (five of the six respondents who complained that video
content was “repetitive” were ESBs). When we explored this issue with focus
groups, ESB students felt that the value of the different perspective emerged in
both the choice of content (e.g., representing other cultural perspectives on a

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
862 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

topic) and the associated classroom activities (e.g., discussions with students
from other cultures about their perceptions of the video). That is, whereas
NESBs may benefit primarily from video’s ability to demonstrate or support
understanding of concepts, ESBs may benefit most by having a new perspec-
tive of the content stemming from postviewing analysis and discussion.
Perhaps related to this, ESBs reported valuing video as a mental break
from other classroom activities more frequently than NESBs (χ2(1) = 7.07,
p = .00 two-sided, odds ratio = 2.91). The survey and focus group responses
confirmed the view that it was the relatively infrequent use of the medium,
rather than the content, that provided the mental break:

I think the video is like a break because it takes your mind off whatever you’ve
been working on before and you just switch off that part of your brain and you
turn on another part of your brain. It just makes it easier to keep focusing.
(Australia, Focus Group)

One explanation for this result relates to NESBs’ difficulties comprehending

video. Straining to understand video presented in a foreign language, particu-
larly if followed by a stress-invoking group analysis, may represent an
extreme concentration challenge, rather than a cognitive break. Our study
was not able to capture data on the effect that this intense viewing may have
had on NESBs’ engagement with, or participation in, other class activities.
Nevertheless, both sets of responses provide a caution against the over-use of
video, which may reduce novelty and attractiveness for ESBs, and/or contrib-
ute to cognitively overloading NESBs.
In contrast to the students’ native language, our analysis showed that nei-
ther age nor culture appeared to influence students’ perceptions of video (e.g.,
the types of features highlighted or nature of suggestions made). Similarly,
while some female focus group participants felt that male students found
video to be less interesting than they did (e.g., “I have found that boys find it
more of a waste of time”—Australia; “I agree. They just think it’s boring.
They don’t like videos. I don’t know why”—PRC), this was not apparent in
our data; no discernible gender patterns were found in the frequency of posi-
tive/negative responses (χ2(1) = 0.22, p = .66 two-sided), and we found no
qualitative differences in the nature of responses between the groups.

Research Question 3: Using Video More Effectively

As Table 4 shows, students’ suggestions related to both the content and usage
of the video and closely paralleled survey responses regarding positive and
negative impacts of video. Our analysis of these suggestions points to two key

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 863

considerations for instructors when using video: (a) provide sufficient support
to ensure that all students are able to take away key learning outcomes from the
use of video (e.g., categories “Make video available to students outside lec-
ture,” “Include subtitles,” and “Choose targeted content” in Table 4) and (b)
manage students’ perceptions so that the purpose and relevance of video con-
tent is clear (e.g., categories “Provide information before viewing” and
“Integrate video with lecture and course content”). In the following discussion,
we expand on some of the key themes, which emerged from integrating the 100
suggestions put forward by students with their other survey responses and from
interview and focus group data. As the subsequent discussion makes clear,
many of the suggestions relate to relatively straightforward approaches that
instructors can incorporate into their preparation and postviewing procedures.

Supporting Students’ Learning. As the previous section showed, NESB stu-

dents reported more challenges in comprehending in-class video (due to dif-
ficulties understanding the language or context) than in other learning
mediums like real-time lectures or preassigned readings. NESB students
found three techniques most useful in supporting their understanding of the
video materials: making video available for students to view outside the lec-
ture (14 responses), including subtitles with videos (12 responses), and pro-
viding a detailed postviewing debrief that summarizes key points (13
responses). An example of each is provided below:

It might have been better if the link (e.g., for YouTube) could be given in
Blackboard after the lecture, then, students could re-watch it if necessary.
(Hong Kong)

Some international students have problems understanding the people in the

video (e.g., the speed of speaking is too fast). English subtitles would help with
this problem. (Thailand)

Give some hints or advice after watching the video. This may be helpful for
international students. (PRC)

While the survey responses from NESB students were entirely supportive
toward the use of subtitles, disagreements did emerge among NESB students
in our focus groups about whether they were, in fact, a help or a hindrance.
One participant captured the essence of both sides of the debate in the follow-
ing response:

Sometimes I was really struggling to understand. . . . I had no idea what was

going on so I would have liked subtitles in some of those videos . . . (but) I

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
864 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

remember that I hated subtitles when I was learning English. I always cut out
the subtitles because it really helps you to learn when you don’t learn look at
subtitles; you just learn it naturally . . . it’s good but it’s also bad. (PRC)

We explore the complex issue of subtitling in more detail in the “Discussion”

section.

Managing Students’ Perceptions. The data also highlighted the fact that our
effectiveness using video was hampered by not being sufficiently transparent
about the purpose of the videos we used and how these related to the course
content, learning outcomes, and/or assessment. Students’ responses made it
clear that their attitudes to video were shaped by, among other things, the
perceived relevance to the lecture and course content and understanding how
the videos added value to, rather than replaced, other content. For instance,
several students complained that video content used in class was not relevant
(10 responses) or was repetitive (6 responses):

I would prefer to gain insight through (the lecturer’s) personal experiences and
academic sources than videos which are at times irrelevant, boring, or old.
(Australia)

The (culture training videos) were not that great - they simply repeated the
theory we learned and were a waste of time, as they did not add much to the
theory. (Russia)

In contrast, students appreciated video material that related directly to the

lecture and course:

After reading the theory, it is helpful to watch a movie to get a real life
perspective and better understand the theory. (Sweden)

Connected to the content of the lecture for easy memorization. (Malaysia)

When you explained (the purpose) beforehand . . . (I) was not confused because I
knew what topic it was under; I knew exactly where it fit in. (PRC, Focus Group 2)

Although survey responses suggested students’ attention was on the choice of

video content (e.g., “Provide (content that is) interesting and strong . . .
related to the objective”—PRC), the importance of instructors explicitly
demonstrating the relationship between video and the course learning objec-
tives was stressed in several interviews and both focus groups. This may be
especially pertinent for instructors who, like us, relied primarily on

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 865

repurposed video. Materials developed specifically to align with the syllabus

(e.g., DVD cases created for textbooks) may reduce this misunderstanding.
On this issue, students also suggested (a) making video content examinable
and (b) explaining in the course outline how and why video will be used. An
example of each is as follows:

If it’s not something you can cite in your answer when you are writing your
exam it’s a waste of time. (Australia, Focus Group 1)

I think (making the purpose of video clear in) the course outline is important.
(PRC, Focus Group 1)

Sensitivities relating to the relationship between video content and course

objectives/assessment may be particularly acute among business students,
where academic performance is given a high priority (Smith, Davy,
Rosenberg, & Haight, 2009), as suggested in the following response:

People tend to be really focused on getting high marks on the exam and if
you’re (showing a video) that’s not going to contribute to (a high mark on the
exam), why should I pay attention to that video? (PRC, Focus Group 2)

Students also felt that it was important for instructors to articulate clearly a
number of features immediately prior to watching a video. These included the
context of the material, the purpose for viewing (e.g., questions for discus-
sion), and the approximate duration of the clip:

Positive: only where “context” is established (i.e., viewer understands the

importance rather than dozing off!). (Australia)

I liked having questions before the video was shown so we had something to
think about. It was also a trigger to launch into group discussions because we
knew what we would discuss. (Australian, Focus Group 1)

I like knowing how long they will be. Keep them short. Discuss after. If long,
note specific important parts. (Australia)

Extant research suggests that these simple previewing cues may serve
multiple benefits. By signaling important features it can assist the learning
process (Mayer, 2009)—especially with repurposed video materials, which
typically contain extraneous content. Finally, students also stressed the role
that a detailed debrief could play in helping them make the connection
between video and lecture and course content (12 responses):

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
866 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

It would be good if we were given slides on the video with the main points and
the lessons we should have learnt from it. (Australia)

A brief summary of main content of video—include it in slides/handouts for

students. (Singapore)

Needs to have a clear link to content with an explanation afterwards. (Australia)

Discussion
This exploratory study examined students’ perceptions about the positive and
negative impacts of the use of video in lectures. We found that students were
more likely to report benefits over drawbacks and that comments on the
video medium (rather than content or usage) were overwhelmingly positive.
We interpret this to mean that students held generally favorable attitudes
toward the use of video in class—a view supported by all interviewees and
focus group participants. Notwithstanding this, the findings suggest that how
video is used can influence students’ perceptions of its attractiveness and
efficacy and that this may be particularly acute when used with groups of
students with different levels of expertise in the language of instruction.
Table 6 aims to bring together the findings and analysis presented above
into a practical series of guidelines for instructors to consider when using
video. We present these in three chronological stages: preparation (i.e., prior
to class), previewing, and postviewing. The checks in the right-hand columns
link each guideline to one or both of the overarching themes drawn from the
analysis of Research Question 3: Supporting students’ learning and/or man-
aging students’ perceptions.
Our study is exploratory, and we caution against instructors deploying
these guidelines, which distil the suggestions and perceptions of students, in
a prescriptive manner. However, for instructors wishing to use video content
with diverse classes we believe that Table 6 provides prudent, empirically
founded guidance on a range of issues seen as important by students.
While our purpose was not to test Mayer’s (2009) cognitive theory of
multimedia learning, the findings give some support for at least three of
Mayer’s principles when using video with diverse classes (Table 1): signaling
(focusing students’ attention on the purpose before viewing to help them
understand the context and organize important materials), segmenting (break-
ing content into brief segments, interspersed with other activities), and per-
sonalization (using authentic “conversational’” dialogue rather than formal,
scripted words).

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 867

Table 6. General Guidelines for Using Video in Management Education With

Diverse Classes.
Managing Supporting
perceptions learning

1. Preparation
a. Communicating the use (and benefit)
•• Explain the use of video during the course in the course outline 
(e.g., how it is planned to be used, relationship to course learning
outcomes and assessment, potential learning benefits)
•• Provide a list of videos to be used during the semester (and their 
availability) in the course outline
•• Explain the use of video during the course at the first lecture 
(e.g., how it is planned to be used, relationship to course learning
outcomes, assessment, potential benefits)
b. Choosing appropriate content
•• Choose only content that is clearly audible and visible 
•• Choose content that contains language that is realistic and inclusive 
•• Choose content that contains both verbal and nonverbal “cues” 
•• Choose videos depicting “authentic” human behavior rather than 
scripted behavior (i.e., documentary)
•• Choose video content that is an appropriate length (3-5 minutes) 
•• c. Making the content available
•• Make content available outside the classroom, including prior to 
class if appropriate, and communicate this to students
2. Previewing
a. Checking equipment
•• Check that video plays at a suitable standard (i.e., is audible and 
visible to all students)
•• Check that the video file is compatible with facilities provided  
b. Focusing the students
•• State clearly the purpose of watching the video, including  
previewing questions
•• Set the scene (e.g., provide any relevant context, cultural 
assumptions)
•• Indicate the approximate duration of the video to be watched  
3. Postviewing
a. Concept checking comprehension
•• Ensure students have understood key aspects of the content 
b. Facilitating learning activities
•• Ensure students are able to share their perceptions of the video 
c. Summarizing key learning outcomes
•• Provide a summary of key outcomes stemming from the video and  
related analysis
•• Explicitly link learning outcomes to course assessment, objectives,  
and content
d. Making follow up available
•• Provide access to additional information (e.g., full video, website(s), 
transcript, summary of learning points)
•• Facilitate ongoing discussion or clarification (e.g., online discussion 
board thread)

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
868 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

At the same time, our findings point to opportunities to extend Mayer’s

principles. For instance, while only one of Mayer’s principles (pretraining)
relates specifically to the pre- or postviewing stage, our data suggest the
potential to expand principles of multimedia design to incorporate the pre-
viewing and postviewing stages (Table 6).
The results also suggest some inherent conflict in applying Mayer’s prin-
ciples in classes where fluency in the language of instruction is variable,
notably, Mayer’s redundancy and coherence principles, which propose reduc-
ing extraneous content, including on-screen text like subtitles which may
support NESB students. The subtitling of video was perhaps the most conten-
tious issue relating to support for NESB students and one we were unable to
resolve in this study. File editing software makes it relatively easy to insert
titles and subtitles into short digital video files. However, like the NESB stu-
dents in our focus groups, practitioners appear divided on whether this will
facilitate or hinder learning. Some argue that, where language is not the pri-
mary learning outcome, sufficient linguistic scaffold is necessary to ensure
that the learner can engage with the content. From this perspective, to not
provide this support would exclude some students (Trice, 2005). Alternatively,
others argue that applied English is diverse, mastery of classroom English
inadequate (Smitherman, 2000), and students should be exposed to varieties
of authentic English used in different situations (Ball & Muhummad, 2003).
Consistent with Mayer’s (2009) redundancy principle, these authors would
suggest excluding subtitles. The empirical research on this issue is mixed;
while some international students appreciate language support, others find it
marginalizing and unhelpful (e.g., Hellsten & Prescott, 2004; Mulligan &
Kirkpatrick, 2000).
More broadly, the distinctions we found between ESB and NESB students
point to a broader challenge for teaching classes where language fluency var-
ies greatly. Efforts to facilitate learning in some students may be detrimental
to others. For instance, too much previewing support may, in fact, inhibit
learning by high-knowledge learners (Kalyuga, 2005) who benefit from the
complexity and nuance that video is well suited to illustrating. Similarly, a
direct conflict may arise between the need to choose and use video content
that demonstrates and supports particular points, as desired by NESB stu-
dents, and one that introduces new perspectives on the content that ESB stu-
dents reported benefitting most from. Resolving these tensions may require
solutions that are outside those suggested in Table 6, which were drawn from
students’ own responses. For instance, a viable alternative to using subtitles
may be to provide students the option of accessing a brief synopsis of the
content and/or a list of challenging vocabulary used in the video prior to
class. Similarly, allowing students the choice to preview video prior to

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 869

class—copyright issues notwithstanding—may be more amenable to the

“user-paced” progress suggested by Mayer (2009) and enable better quality
in-class discussions or analysis. Likewise, structuring postviewing discus-
sions so that they (a) provide a clear concept check to emphasize key points
and (b) allow opportunities for students to exchange perceptions about the
video content may help both groups of students (ESB/NESB) reinforce and
extend their understanding of the content under analysis.
Our findings also suggest a tension between Mayer’s coherence principle,
which proposes removing extraneous content, and our students’ preference
for authentic video content, which—being unscripted—typically contains
superfluous verbal and nonverbal cues. We suggest that this relates to the
content being taught; whereas Mayer’s experiments dealt primarily with the
learning of highly explicit technical content, our use of video targeted less
tangible psychological concepts. For this content, we suggest that students
may benefit from video that captures the complexity of authentic settings.
Moreover, as outlined earlier, students saw the relevance of authentic content
to their lives beyond the classroom and so contributed toward their percep-
tions of the relevance of the content.
In contrast to earlier studies (e.g., Clarke & Flaherty, 2002; Mahrous &
Ahmed, 2010) our data also provide initial indication that variables like age,
culture, and gender may not have a pronounced influence on students’ atti-
tudes toward the use of video. One explanation for this may be converging
educational expectations. It is possible that the distinct cultural and age pat-
terns noted in earlier studies may be eroded by growing public access to
sources like YouTube, especially among “digital natives.” For this group,
language fluency may be one of the remaining hurdles to convergence.
Finally, the findings do present a counterpoint to the lay-person’s assumption
that using video is easier than other teaching methods. Rather, the students’
responses indicate that while digital developments have streamlined many of
the technical aspects of using video, effectively using video requires planning
and effort on the part of instructors.

Research Limitations and Future Research

Directions
Like all research, our study has a number of limitations. Most pertinently, our
data collection methods focused on students’ consciously formed perceptions
toward video. The relationship between students’ perceptions, typically
teaching evaluations, and learning outcomes are mixed and contentious (see,
e.g., Feldman, 1989; McCallum, 1984; Merritt, 2008; Natfulin, Ware, &
Donnelly, 1973). In their study of students’ perceptions of different teaching

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
870 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

technologies, Tang and Austin (2009, p. 1251) suggest a link between the
“entertainment value” of video and learning, although offer no support for
this. Confidentiality requirements prevented us from correlating responses
with actual student performance, and thus future studies investigating the
links between learning preferences, learning outcomes, and the use of video
are suggested.
A second limitation relates to the context in which the data were collected.
It is impossible to separate our use of video from other teaching methods,
technologies, and content, and the learning environment that comprised these
courses. For instance, some classes were conducted in rooms unconducive to
group discussion and where technological glitches interfered with the planned
use of video.3 Moreover, as outlined above, we used video in particular ways
and with predetermined objectives. These contextual factors, inherent in any
naturalistic empirical study like ours, can be expected to influence the way
that students responded to questions about the video. Short-term experimen-
tal interventions—including comparisons between experimental and control
groups—might improve understanding of the contribution of different aspects
of the class environment to students’ experience with video. Such studies
may examine, for instance, the impact of contextual factors like the duration,
frequency, and content of video on perceived learning outcomes. Experimental
designs are also well suited to testing the guidelines presented in Table 6,
which come from students’ own responses.
In relation to the study’s sample, while inductive research like ours does
not seek statistical generalization, it is worth considering how transferable
our findings may be to other samples and settings. The proportion of interna-
tional students (59%) and NESB students (49%) in this study were generally
consistent with other studies and with the makeup of business classrooms in
Australia (Daglish & Evans, 2008; OECD, 2012). Nonetheless, the Australian
education system is among the world’s most culturally diverse (OECD,
2012). Future studies may wish to replicate the research across scholarly dis-
ciplines and with different cohorts.
Notwithstanding these limitations, we believe that our study makes a valu-
able contribution to the existing literature. As one of the first articles to
explore in detail students’ perceptions of video, it breaks the soil on a feature
of management education that is both current and relevant. In doing so, it also
provides a voice to a group that had previously been excluded from discourse
on this topic. The guidelines in Table 6, provided they are used with appropri-
ate attention to context and circumstances, present a useful roadmap for
instructors wishing to consider students’ views in their choice and use of
video. Management education in the future is likely to become increasingly
challenging, with even more diverse cohorts and increased pressures on

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 871

instructors to use multimedia and video content in ways that enhance, rather
than diminish, in-class learning. Our study provides a springboard from
which future studies can investigate these important issues.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publi-
cation of this article.

Notes
1. Copyright restrictions prevented us from making most video content available
online; however, we did provide links to files that were already publicly avail-
able online. We also made references of source materials available so that stu-
dents could borrow the full DVD from the university library.
2. For this analysis, and for all the Pearson’s chi-square tests reported (except
where noted), the assumptions underpinning the analysis (see Field, 2005) were
met, including that all expected frequencies were higher than 5.
3. As Table 6 makes clear, we attribute both of these issues to inadequate prepara-
tion on our part.

References
Ball, A. F., & Muhummad, R. J. (2003). Language diversity in teacher education and
in the classroom. In G. Smitherman & V. Villanueva (Eds.), Language diversity
in the classroom: From intention to practice (pp. 76-88). Carbondale: Southern
Illinois University Press.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bumpas, M. (2005). Using motion pictures to teach management: Refocusing the
camera lens through the infusion approach to diversity. Journal of Management
Education, 29, 792-815.
Campbell, F. A., Goldman, B. D., Boccia, M. L., & Skinner, M. (2004). The effect of
format modifications and reading comprehension on recall of informed consent
information by low-income parents: A comparison of print, video, and computer-
based presentations. Patient Education and Counselling, 53, 205-216.
Clarke, I., & Flaherty, T. (2002). Teaching internationally: Matching part-time MBA
instructional tools to host country student preferences. Journal of Marketing
Education, 24, 233-242.
Comer, D. R., & Holbrook, R. L. (2012). Getting behind the scenes of Fleetwood
Mac’s rumours: Using a documentary on the making of a music album to learn
about task groups. Journal of Management Education, 36, 544-567.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
872 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

Daglish, C., & Evans, P. (2008). Teaching in the global business classroom.
Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of
Management Review, 14, 532-550.
Feldman, K. A. (1989). Association between student ratings of specific instructional
dimensions and student achievement: Refining and extending the synthesis of data
from multi section validity studies. Research in Higher Education, 30, 583-645.
Field, A. (2005). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. London, England: Sage.
Gallos, J. (1993). Teaching about reframing with films and video. Journal of
Management Education, 17, 127-132.
Halevi, G., & Moed, H. F. (2012, November). International scientific migration anal-
ysis generates new insights. Research Trends, 31. Retrieved from http://www.
researchtrends.com/issue-31-november-2012/international-scientific-migration-
analysis-generates-new-insights/
Hayati, A., & Mohmedi, F. (2011). The effect of films with and without subtitles
on listening comprehension of EFL learners. British Journal of Educational
Technology, 42, 181-192.
Hellsten, M., & Prescott, A. (2004). Learning at university: The international stu-
dents’ experience. International Education Journal, 5, 344-351.
Hills, S., & Thom, V. (2005). Crossing a multicultural divide: Teaching business
strategy to students from culturally mixed backgrounds. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 9, 316-336.
Holbrook, R. L. (2007). Art imitates life: Using movies and music in principles of
management. New York, NY: Wiley.
Holbrook, R. L. (2009). OB in a video box: Using remember the Titans as a micro-
cosm for the organizational behavior course. Journal of Management Education,
33, 490-513.
Holtbrügge, D., & Mohr, A. T. (2010). Cultural determinants of learning style prefer-
ences. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 9, 622-637.
Huczynski, A., & Buchanan, D. (2004). Theory from fiction: A narrative process
perspective on the pedagogical use of feature film. Journal of Management
Education, 28, 707-726.
Hunt, C. S. (2001). Must see TV: The timelessness of television as a teaching tool.
Journal of Management Education, 25, 631-647.
Jonassen, D. H., & Grabowski, B. L. (1993). Handbook of individual differences,
learning and instruction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Kalyuga, S. (2005). The prior knowledge principle in multimedia learning. In R. E.
Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 325-337).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kelly, P. (2009). Group work and multicultural management education. Journal of
Teaching in International Business, 20, 80-102.
Kenworthy-U’Ren, A., & Erickson, A. (2009). Adventure racing and organiza-
tional behavior using eco challenge video clips to stimulate learning. Journal of
Management Education, 33, 420-443.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
Fee and Budde-Sung 873

Kingston, E., & Forland, H. (2008). Bridging the gap in expectations between interna-
tional students and academic staff. Journal of Studies in International Education,
12, 204-221.
Lee, D. S. (1997). What teachers can do to relieve problems identified by international
students. New Directions for Teaching and Learning, 70, 93-100.
Liedtka, J. (2001). The promise and peril of video cases: Reflections on their creation
and use. Journal of Management Education, 25, 409-424.
Lin, J., & Yi, J. (1997). Asian international students’ adjustment: Issues and program
suggestions. College Student Journal, 31, 473-480.
Mahrous, A. A., & Ahmed, A. A. (2010). A cross-cultural investigation of students’
perceptions of the effectiveness of pedagogical tools. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 14, 289-306.
Mayer, R. E. (2008). Applying the science of learning: Evidence-based principles for
the design of multimedia instruction. American Psychologist, 63, 760-769.
Mayer, R. E. (2009). Multimedia learning (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animation needs narrations: An experi-
mental test of a dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
484-490.
McCallum, L. W. (1984). A meta-analysis of course evaluation data and its use in the
tenure decision. Research in Higher Education, 21, 150-158.
Merritt, D. J. (2008). Bias, the brain, and student evaluations of teaching. St John’s
Law Review, 82, 235-287.
Michell, L. (1999). Combining focus groups and interviews: Telling how it is; tell-
ing how it feels. In R. S. Barbour & J. Kitzinger (Eds.), Developing focus group
research: Politics, theory and practice (pp. 36-46). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded
sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Milner, H. R. (2010). Culture, curriculum, and identity in education. New York, NY:
Palgrave Macmillan.
Mulligan, D., & Kirkpatrick, A. (2000). How much do they understand? Lecturers,
students, and comprehension. Higher Education Research and Development, 19,
311-335.
Natfulin, D. H., Ware, J. E., & Donnelly, F. A. (1973). The Doctor Fox lecture: A
paradigm of educational seduction. Journal of Medical Education, 48, 630-635.
OECD. (2012). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. Retrieved from http://
dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2012-en
Patton, M. Q. (2002). Qualitative research and evaluation methods (3rd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Piaget, J. (1955). The child’s construction of reality. London, England: Routledge.
Prensky, M. (2005). Listen to the natives. Educational Leadership, 63, 8-13.
Ramburuth, P., & McCormick, J. (2001). Learning diversity in higher education:
A comparative study of Asian international and Australian students. Higher
Education, 42, 333-350.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015
874 Journal of Management Education 38(6)

Robertson, M., Line, M., Jones, S., & Thomas, S. (2000). International students,
learning environments and perceptions: A case study using the Delphi technique.
Higher Education Research and Development, 19, 89-102.
Rodrigues, C. (2005). Culture as a determinant of the importance level business
students place on ten teaching/learning techniques. Journal of Management
Development, 24, 608-611.
Saltmarsh, S., & Swirski, T. (2010). “Pawns and prawns”: International academics’
observations on their transition to working in an Australian university. Journal of
Higher Education Policy and Management, 32, 291-301.
Silverman, D., & Marvasti, A. (2008). Doing qualitative research: A comprehensive
guide. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Singh, M. (2005). Engaging translational learning communities: Policies, peda-
gogies and politics of educational power. In P. Ninnes & M. Hellsten (Eds.),
Internationalizing higher education: Critical explorations of pedagogy and pol-
icy (pp. 9-36). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
Smith, K. J., Davy, J. A., Rosenberg, D. L., & Haight, G. T. (2009). The role of moti-
vation and attitude on cheating among business students. Journal of Academic
and Business Ethics, 2, 12-37.
Smitherman, G. (2000). Talkin that talk: Language, culture and education in African
America. New York, NY: Routledge.
Tang, T. L.-P., & Austin, M. J. (2009). Students’ perceptions of teaching technolo-
gies, application of technologies, and academic performance. Computers &
Education, 53, 1241-1255.
Tatar, S. (2005). Classroom participation by international students: The case of Turkish
graduate students. Journal of Studies in International Education, 9, 337-355.
Trice, A. G. (2005). Navigating in a multicultural learning community: Academic
departments’ responses to graduate international students. Journal of Studies in
International Education, 9, 62-89.
Tyler, C. L., Anderson, M. H., & Tyler, J. M. (2009). Giving students new eyes: The
benefits of having students find media clips to illustrate management concepts.
Journal of Management Education, 33, 444-461.
Wilkinson, L. C. (2007). A developmental approach to uses of moving pictures in inter-
cultural education. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 31, 1-27.
Zalan, T., & Lewis, G. (2004). Writing about methods in qualitative research:
Towards a more transparent approach. In R. Marschan-Piekkari & C. Welch
(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research methods for international business (pp.
507-528). Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Zhu, C., Valcke, M., & Schellens, T. (2008). A cross-cultural study of Chinese
and Flemish university students: Do they differ in learning conceptions and
approaches to learning? Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 120-127.
Zikmund, W. G. (1997). Business research methods (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Dryden Press.

Downloaded from jme.sagepub.com at NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIV on May 13, 2015