Vol. 35 No. 1 (2020): Special Issue on Technology and Teacher Education
Special Issue

Exploring the Creation of Instructional Videos to Improve the Quality of Mathematical Explanations for Pre-Service Teachers

Robin Kay
University of Ontario Institute of Technology
Robyn Ruttenberg-Rozen

Published 2020-10-30

How to Cite

Kay, R., & Ruttenberg-Rozen, R. (2020). Exploring the Creation of Instructional Videos to Improve the Quality of Mathematical Explanations for Pre-Service Teachers. International Journal of E-Learning & Distance Education Revue Internationale Du E-Learning Et La Formation à Distance, 35(1). Retrieved from https://ijede.ca/index.php/jde/article/view/1161


Abstract: One of the primary skills required by mathematics teachers is the ability to provide effective explanations to their students. Using Kay’s (2014) theory-based framework for creating instructional videos, this study explored the quality and growth of explanations embedded in mathematical instructional videos created by 37 pre-service teachers (female = 26, male = 11). The Instructional Video Evaluation Scale (IVES), comprised of four constructs (establishing context, explanation heuristics, minimizing cognitive load, engagement), was used to assess the quality of two videos (pre-feedback and post-feedback). The initial video created by pre-service teachers (pre-feedback) revealed a number of problem areas, including providing a clear problem label, using visual supports, noting potential errors that might occur, writing legibly, highlighting key areas, listing key terms and formulas, being concise, and using a clear, conversational voice. After receiving detailed feedback based on the IVES, the ratings of the second video (post-feedback) for each of the initial problem areas increased significantly. The IVES scale, grounded on Kay’s (2014) framework, helped identify and improve the effectiveness of pre-service teachers’ explanations of mathematics concepts.


Keywords: pre-service teachers, instructional videos, mathematics teaching, explanation


Résumé: L'une des principales compétences requises des professeurs de mathématiques est de fournir des explications efficaces à leurs élèves. À l'aide du cadre théorique de Kay (2014) pour la création de vidéos pédagogiques, cette étude a exploré la qualité et la croissance des explications intégrées dans les vidéos pédagogiques mathématiques créées par 37 enseignants stagiaires (femmes = 26, hommes = 11). L'échelle d'évaluation de la vidéo pédagogique (IVES), composée de quatre concepts (établissement du contexte, heuristique d'explication, minimisation de la charge cognitive, engagement), a été utilisée pour évaluer la qualité de deux vidéos (pré-feedback et post-feedback). La vidéo initiale créée par les enseignants stagiaires (pré-rétroaction) a révélé un certain nombre de domaines problématiques, notamment fournir une étiquette claire du problème, utiliser des supports visuels, noter les erreurs potentielles qui pourraient survenir, écrire lisiblement, mettre en évidence les domaines clés, énumérer les termes et formules clés , utilisant une voix claire et conversationnelle et concis Après avoir reçu des commentaires détaillés, basés sur l'IVES, les notes de la deuxième vidéo (post-feedback) pour chacun des problèmes initiaux ont augmenté de manière significative. L’échelle IVES, fondée sur le cadre de Kay (2014), a permis d’identifier et d’améliorer l’efficacité des explications des enseignants de formation sur les concepts mathématiques.


Mots-clés: enseignants stagiaires, vidéos pédagogiques, enseignement des mathématiques, explication



Dr. Robin Kay is currently a full professor and dean in the Faculty of Education at Ontario Tech University in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. He has published over 160 articles, chapters, and conference papers in the area of technology in education, is a reviewer for five prominent computer education journals, and has taught in the fields of computer science, mathematics, and educational technology for over 25 years at the high school, college, undergraduate, and graduate levels. Current projects include research on laptop use in higher education, BYOD in K-12 education, web-based learning tools, e-learning and blended learning in secondary and higher education, video podcasts, scale development, emotions and the use of computers, the impact of social media tools in education, and factors that influence how students learn with technology. Dr. Kay received his MA in Computer Applications in Education and his PhD in Cognitive Science (Educational Psychology) at the University of Toronto. Email: Robin.Kay@uoit.ca


Dr. Robyn Ruttenberg-Rozen is an assistant professor of STEAM education and graduate program director in the Faculty of Education at Ontario Tech University in Oshawa, Ontario, Canada. She explores pedagogical practices and current discourses in STEAM education around typically underserved, linguistically and culturally diverse, and exceptional populations of learners and their teachers. At the centre of her research is the study of change, innovation, and access in pedagogical spaces (virtual and face-to-face) with a focus on strategies and interventions. Her graduate and undergraduate teaching includes courses in integrated STEAM learning, mathematics methods and content, qualitative research methods, curriculum theory, and theories of learning. Email: Robyn.Ruttenberg-Rozen@uoit.ca


  1. Arcavi, A. (2003). The role of visual representations in the learning of mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 52(3), 215–241. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024312321077
  2. Atkinson, R. K., Derry, S. J., Renkl, A., & Wortham, D. (2000). Learning from examples: Instructional principles from the worked examples research. Review of Educational Research, 70(2), 181–214. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543070002181
  3. Atkinson, R. K., Mayer, R. E., & Merrill, M. M. (2005). Fostering social agency in multimedia learning: Examining the impact of an animated agent’s voice. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30(1), 117–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2004.07.001
  4. Ball, D. L., & Bass, H. (2000). Interweaving content and pedagogy in teaching and learning to teach: Knowing and using mathematics. In J. Boaler (Ed.), Multiple perspectives on mathematics of teaching and learning (pp. 83–104). Ablex Publishing.
  5. Ball, D. L., & Forzani, F. M. (2009). The work of teaching and the challenge for teacher education. Journal of Teacher Education, 60(5), 497–511. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487109348479
  6. Bills, L., Dreyfus, T., Mason, J., Tsamir, P., Watson, A., & Zaslavsky, O. (2006). Exemplification in mathematics education. In J. Novotná, H. Moraová, M. Krátká, & N. Stehlíková (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Conference of the International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education (Vol. 1, pp. 126–154). Charles University.
  7. Bransford, J. D., Brown, A. L., & Cocking. R. R. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school (Expanded ed.). National Academy Press.
  8. Clark, R. C., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). e-Learning and the science of instruction. Pfeiffer.
  9. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Academic Press.
  10. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112(1), 155–159. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155
  11. Crippen, K. J., & Earl, B. L. (2004). Considering the efficacy of web-based worked examples in introductory chemistry. Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 23(2), 151–167. https://www.learntechlib.org/primary/p/12876/
  12. Giannakos, M. N., Jaccheri, L., & Krogstie, J. (2015). Exploring the relationship between video lecture usage patterns and students’ attitudes. British Journal of Educational Technology, 47(6), 1259–1275. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.12313
  13. Inoue, N. (2009). Rehearsing to teach: Content-specific deconstruction of instructional explanations in pre-service teacher training. Journal of Education for Teaching, 35(1), 47–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/02607470802587137
  14. Kay, R. H. (2014). Developing a framework for creating effective instructional video podcasts. International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 9(1), 22–30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v9i1.3335
  15. Kester, L., Lehnen, C., Van Gerven, P. W., & Kirschner, P. A. (2006). Just-in-time, schematic supportive information presentation during cognitive skill acquisition. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2005.01.008
  16. Kirschner, P. A., Sweller, J., & Clark, R. E. (2006). Why minimal guidance during instruction does not work: An analysis of the failure of constructivist, discovery, problem-based, experiential, and inquiry-based teaching. Educational Psychologist, 41(2), 75–86. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4102_1
  17. Kline, P. (1999). The handbook of psychological testing (2nd ed.). Routledge.
  18. Krupa, E. E., Huey, M., Lesseig, K., Casey, S., & Monson, D. (2017). Investigating secondary preservice teacher noticing of students’ mathematical thinking. In E. O. Schack, M. H. Fisher, & J. Wilhelm (Eds.), Research in mathematics education (Vol. 6, pp. 49–72). Springer International Publishing.
  19. Lee, M. Y., & Francis, D. C. (2018). Investigating the relationships among elementary teachers’ perceptions of the use of students’ thinking, their professional noticing skills, and their teaching practices. The Journal of Mathematical Behavior, 51, 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmathb.2017.11.007
  20. Leinhardt, G. (2001). Instructional explanations: A commonplace for teaching and location for contrast. In V. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (4th ed., pp. 333–357). American Educational Research Association.
  21. Ljubojevic, M., Vaskovic, V., Stankovic, S., & Vaskovic, J. (2014). Using supplementary video in multimedia instruction as a teaching tool to increase efficiency of learning and quality of experience. International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 15(3), 275–291. https://doi.org/10.19173/irrodl.v15i3.1825
  22. Loomes, M., Shafarenko, A., & Loomes, M. (2002). Teaching mathematical explanation through audiographic technology. Computers & Education, 38(1–3), 137–149. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0360-1315(01)00083-5
  23. Long, T., Logan, J., & Waugh, M. (2016). Students’ perceptions of the value of using videos as a pre-class learning experience in the flipped classroom. TechTrends, 60(3), 245–252. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11528-016-0045-4
  24. Mason, J. (2002). Researching your own practice: The discipline of noticing. Routledge-Falmer.
  25. Mason, J., Burton, L., & Stacey, K. (2010). Thinking mathematically (2nd ed.). Pearson.
  26. MerchDope. (2020, February 26). 37 mind blowing YouTube facts, figures and statistics – 2020. https://merchdope.com/youtube-stats
  27. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. McGraw-Hill.
  28. Ontario Ministry of Education. (2005). The Ontario curriculum grades 1-8: Mathematics revised. Queen’s Printer for Ontario.
  29. Polya, G. (2004). How to solve it: A new aspect of mathematical method (Expanded Princeton Science Library ed.). Princeton University Press.
  30. Renkl, A. (2005). The worked-out examples principle in multimedia learning. In R. E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (pp. 229–245). Cambridge University Press.
  31. Rowland, T. (2008). The purpose, design and use of examples in the teaching of elementary mathematics. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 69(2), 149–163. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10649-008-9148-y
  32. Sahin, A., Cavlazoglu, B., & Zeytuncu, Y. E. (2015). Flipping a college calculus course: A case study. Educational Technology & Society, 18(3), 142–152. https://www.jstor.org/stable/jeductechsoci.18.3.142
  33. Santagata, R., & Bray, W. (2016). Professional development processes that promote teacher change: The case of a video-based program focused on leveraging students’ mathematical errors. Professional Development in Education, 42(4), 547–568. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2015.1082076
  34. Schopf, C., Raso, A., & Kahr, M. (2019). How to give effective explanations: Guidelines for business education, discussion of their scope and their application to teaching operations research. RISTAL, 2, 32–50. https://doi.org/10.23770/rt1823
  35. Son, J.- W. (2013). How preservice teachers interpret and respond to student errors: Ratio and proportion in similar rectangles. Educational Studies in Mathematics, 84(1), 49–70. https://www.jstor.org/stable/43589772
  36. Triantafyllou, E., & Timcenko, O. (2015). Student perceptions on learning with online resources in a flipped mathematics classroom [Paper presentation]. 9th Congress of European Research in Mathematics Education (CERME9), Prague, Czech Republic. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277016310_Student_perceptions_on_learning_with_online_resources_in_a_flipped_mathematics_classroom
  37. Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom. John Wiley & Sons.
  38. Wittwer, J., & Renkl, A. (2008). Why instructional explanations often do not work: A framework for understanding the effectiveness of instructional explanations. Educational Psychologist, 43(1), 49–64. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756420