<p>Consider this, communication is more than 50% nonverbal. Studies vary (from 93% nonverbal to 75%) and the actual percentage is difficult to interpret, but it is generally accepted that <a href="http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal/" rel="noreferrer">most of the communication is nonverbal.</a></p>
<p>That being said, a book is only written word and content, whereas a lecture is dynamic, versatile, and incorporates much of the nonverbal content.</p>
<p>Moreover, a lecture and video has much more stimulus going to the brain and this does have an impact on memory retention. Consider how PTSD cases arise; they are due to an individual experiencing hyper-stimulation (from the emotional brain) which in turn creates very strong memories. The same would hold true when comparing learning through reading and learning through a lecture.</p>
<h2>However</h2>
<p>This depends on many things:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>For example if the lecturer is boring and monotone, it's the same or worse (boring lectures can put people to sleep) than giving a student something to read.</p>
</li>
<li><p>It also depends on the student's ability and motivation. If he or she is motivated and enjoys the subject, they will retain a lot of information from reading and working on their own due to their sense of joy in the subject--an emotional response will in turn encode memories more strongly.</p>
</li>
<li><p>Lastly it depends on how well the concept is explained. If a student does not understand a concept then for them to perform the calculations it will require a lot more memory work. If they understand something, then the actual memory work will be less, because they need not recall as much information in order to solve the problem.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>In general though I would say that videos and lectures have more potential of creating memory retention due to providing more stimuli for the student.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-10T06:59:31.177Z
@MichaelBächtold Learning requires focus. You can probably relate to this idea if you think back to a class you've sat through but learned nothing. The reason I said that a boring lecture can be worse is because it is often the case that a boring lecture will cause students to fall asleep. Or it could be just as effective as assigned reading in terms of how stimulating the lecture is. In all cases, the important thing is that the student is focusing on the information being fed to them. This is more easily done when there is more stimuli; I just wanted to point out the possible exception.
Klik
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-10T08:51:15.403Z
@Klik: thanks for clarifying, I think I got the point.
Michael Bächtold
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-07T09:41:41.827Z
Thanks for your answer. Concerning the first point of boring lectures: do you know of research supporting that claim? This study http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-013-0442-z cast some doubt. The last point you mention suggest that it is better not to explain to well if we want students brain to be activated (i don't doubt that in addition one should incorporate activities like solving problems). Again I'd be glad to know of research on this.
Michael Bächtold
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-07T17:30:34.007Z
@what: thanks. I don't quite understand the first part of your remark. I didn't think that "boring the students" is the same as "leaving gaps". Neither does the article I linked to talk about any of these points.
Michael Bächtold
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-08T15:18:37.823Z
@MichaelBächtold The experiment provided by your link does not specify the observers being in a state of "boredom"; it only shows how the perception of learning changes when the lecturer is fluent or not. Here is a much better article on the effects of boredom http://www.academia.edu/1912999/The_unengaged_mind_Defining_boredom_in_terms_of_attention . The last point I made was not intended to infer that it is better not to explain a concept very well. How did you interpret that?
Klik
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-08T17:46:49.870Z
@Klik: well you said that if a concept is not explained well, then a student has to do a lot more "memory work". I was assuming that doing "memory work" is good for the learning process and the brain. Is that not the case?
Michael Bächtold
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-08T18:07:42.590Z
@Klik: the article you link to gives a definition of the state of boredom, which is good so we can agree on what we are talking about. Of course this very definition implies that in such a state one is not learning since we are "not able to engage attention and participate". Now you said "For example if the lecturer is boring...it's the same or worse ... than giving a student something to read". I interpret this as saying that reading assignments cause boredom in most students. Did I understand that correctly?
Michael Bächtold
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-10T06:52:12.873Z
@MichaelBächtold I see what you mean. A little memory work is good for learning when it re-enforces the pathways in the brain. What I was referring to, is when a student doesn't understand a concept and instead of relying on his/her understanding to solve it, they depend on memorizing the exact problem in order to solve it.
Klik
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-06T19:30:01.153Z
2014-02-06T19:39:51.647Z
2020-06-17T09:55:31.633Z
Klik
<p>I teach calculus to freshmen and currently spend most of the classroom time lecturing. To make classes more interactive I'd like to shift this phase of "knowledge transfer" outside of classes. Either by giving students reading assignments, or by giving them videos to watch.</p>

<p>So I was wondering if <em>reading</em> as opposed to <em>watching a video</em> of someone explaining the same thing, results in different learning outcomes.</p>

<p>An attempt to make the question more narrow: is there a difference in brain activity or knowledge retention between reading a text vs. watching another person reciting the same text?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-06T14:42:35.480Z
casually, i think it would depend upon the topic.  I think there would be higher retention when watching a video on a physical technique, than to read about it.
New Alexandria
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-02-07T09:47:28.727Z
@what: thanks for the comments. Of course in both scenarios I would add activities like solving problems, but that is independent of the format in which the "facts" are delivered. Also if I made a video it would not only consist of me reading, but would probably be more like a screen-cast with notes like on a blackboard.
Michael Bächtold
<learning><educational-psychology><reading>
Reading vs. watching a lecture: which activity results in higher knowledge retention?
Michael Bächtold
# Reading vs. watching a lecture: which activity results in higher knowledge retention?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-02-06)

I teach calculus to freshmen and currently spend most of the classroom time lecturing. To make classes more interactive I'd like to shift this phase of "knowledge transfer" outside of classes. Either by giving students reading assignments, or by giving them videos to watch.

So I was wondering if *reading* as opposed to *watching a video* of someone explaining the same thing, results in different learning outcomes.

An attempt to make the question more narrow: is there a difference in brain activity or knowledge retention between reading a text vs. watching another person reciting the same text?

**Tags:** learning, educational-psychology, reading

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: casually, i think it would depend upon the topic.  I think there would be higher retention when watching a video on a physical technique, than to read about it.  
> **username_0**: @what: thanks for the comments. Of course in both scenarios I would add activities like solving problems, but that is independent of the format in which the "facts" are delivered. Also if I made a video it would not only consist of me reading, but would probably be more like a screen-cast with notes like on a blackboard.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2014-02-06. Score: 5

Consider this, communication is more than 50% nonverbal. Studies vary (from 93% nonverbal to 75%) and the actual percentage is difficult to interpret, but it is generally accepted that [most of the communication is nonverbal.](http://www.nonverbalgroup.com/2011/08/how-much-of-communication-is-really-nonverbal/)

That being said, a book is only written word and content, whereas a lecture is dynamic, versatile, and incorporates much of the nonverbal content.

Moreover, a lecture and video has much more stimulus going to the brain and this does have an impact on memory retention. Consider how PTSD cases arise; they are due to an individual experiencing hyper-stimulation (from the emotional brain) which in turn creates very strong memories. The same would hold true when comparing learning through reading and learning through a lecture.

## However

This depends on many things:

* For example if the lecturer is boring and monotone, it's the same or worse (boring lectures can put people to sleep) than giving a student something to read.
* It also depends on the student's ability and motivation. If he or she is motivated and enjoys the subject, they will retain a lot of information from reading and working on their own due to their sense of joy in the subject--an emotional response will in turn encode memories more strongly.
* Lastly it depends on how well the concept is explained. If a student does not understand a concept then for them to perform the calculations it will require a lot more memory work. If they understand something, then the actual memory work will be less, because they need not recall as much information in order to solve the problem.

In general though I would say that videos and lectures have more potential of creating memory retention due to providing more stimuli for the student.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Thanks for your answer. Concerning the first point of boring lectures: do you know of research supporting that claim? This study http://link.springer.com/article/10.3758%2Fs13423-013-0442-z cast some doubt. The last point you mention suggest that it is better not to explain to well if we want students brain to be activated (i don't doubt that in addition one should incorporate activities like solving problems). Again I'd be glad to know of research on this.  
> **username_0**: @what: thanks. I don't quite understand the first part of your remark. I didn't think that "boring the students" is the same as "leaving gaps". Neither does the article I linked to talk about any of these points.  
> **username_2**: @MichaelBächtold The experiment provided by your link does not specify the observers being in a state of "boredom"; it only shows how the perception of learning changes when the lecturer is fluent or not. Here is a much better article on the effects of boredom http://www.academia.edu/1912999/The_unengaged_mind_Defining_boredom_in_terms_of_attention . The last point I made was not intended to infer that it is better not to explain a concept very well. How did you interpret that?  
> **username_0**: @username_2: well you said that if a concept is not explained well, then a student has to do a lot more "memory work". I was assuming that doing "memory work" is good for the learning process and the brain. Is that not the case?  
> **username_0**: @username_2: the article you link to gives a definition of the state of boredom, which is good so we can agree on what we are talking about. Of course this very definition implies that in such a state one is not learning since we are "not able to engage attention and participate". Now you said "For example if the lecturer is boring...it's the same or worse ... than giving a student something to read". I interpret this as saying that reading assignments cause boredom in most students. Did I understand that correctly?  
> **username_2**: @MichaelBächtold I see what you mean. A little memory work is good for learning when it re-enforces the pathways in the brain. What I was referring to, is when a student doesn't understand a concept and instead of relying on his/her understanding to solve it, they depend on memorizing the exact problem in order to solve it.  
> **username_2**: @MichaelBächtold Learning requires focus. You can probably relate to this idea if you think back to a class you've sat through but learned nothing. The reason I said that a boring lecture can be worse is because it is often the case that a boring lecture will cause students to fall asleep. Or it could be just as effective as assigned reading in terms of how stimulating the lecture is. In all cases, the important thing is that the student is focusing on the information being fed to them. This is more easily done when there is more stimuli; I just wanted to point out the possible exception.  
> **username_0**: @username_2: thanks for clarifying, I think I got the point.  

---

