Lightboard Research Articles & White Papers

Introduction

A variety of academic researchers have studied the pedagogy of lightboard presentations and generated white papers & articles to share their findings. A sample of them are listed here. Some generally-supported conclusions based on a review of this research are discussed below.

Fig 1: Visual comparison of a whiteboard vs. lightboard presentation (Mayer)

Points of Emphasis

  1. Increased Engagement - Students described the lightboard as engaging, more personable, appealing to visual learners, easier to follow and retain the information, and more similar to a conventional live lecture (Southard). It can also help limit classroom distractions for students (Whitley, Swanson, Lambert).

  2. Preferred by Students/Viewers - In split-tests, students have expressed a preference for lightboard videos over other formats (Lubrick, Southard) 

  3. Improved Performance - Data showed a modest academic performance increase on the overall score on in-class assignments for the group receiving lightboard videos (Mayer, Rogers)

  4. Gaze Guidance - The gaze of a presenter being visible as they interact with content assists learning outcomes. Students naturally follow a presenter's gaze as a guide to navigate to a relevant area of material. Gestures further support comprehension (Mayer, Lubrick)

  5. Cognitive Load Theory - Simplification is powerful. Extraneous details and animations do not support improved learning outcomes. Simplified presentation formats that convey only the material needed are easier to follow. Marker-drawn diagrams and images are simple by their nature compared to complex digital images. Avoiding images which contain extraneous details helps students to learn better. Students also learn better when they watch an instructor draw out a graphics on-screen as compared to already drawn graphics (Mayer, Lubrick)

  6. Social Agency Theory / Connection with Presenter - When the learner feels social partnership with the instructor, the learner will exert more effort to understand what the instructor is saying, which results in better learning outcomes (Lubrick) 

References

  1. Stone, Whitley J.; Swanson, Andrew; Lambert, Jack. (2022) A Handbook for Lightboard Technology in the Kinesiology Classroom. Educational Practices in Kinesiology. https://digitalcommons.wku.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=epik
  2. Mayer R, Fiorella L, Stull A. (2020) Five ways to increase the effectiveness of instructional video. Association for Educational Communications and Technology. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11423-020-09749-6
  3. Lubrick, Mark; Zhou, George; Zhang, Jingsheng. (2019) Is the Future Bright? The Potential of Lightboard Videos for Student Achievement and Engagement in Learning. EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science and Technology Education 2019, 15 (8) https://doi.org/10.29333/ejmste/108437
  4. Rogers PD, Botnaru D. (2019) Shedding light on student learning through the use of lightboard videos. Int J Scholarsh Teach Learn 13: 1–10. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/ij-sotl/vol13/iss3/6/ 
  5. Southard SM, Young K. (2018) An exploration of online students’ impressions of contextualization, segmentation, and incorporation of light board lectures in multimedia instructional content. J Public Prof Sociol 2018; 10: 7. https://digitalcommons.kennesaw.edu/jpps/vol10/iss1/7/  
  6. Fung FM. (2017) Adopting lightboard for a chemistry flipped classroom to improve technology-enhanced videos for better learner engagement. J Chem Educ; 94: 956–959. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.jchemed.7b00004 
  7. Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol 93 , 187–198 https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2001-16705-015