See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/333425485

Interactive Video for Learning: A Review of Interaction Types, Commercial

Platforms, and Design Guidelines

Chapter in Communications in Computer and Information Science · May 2019

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-20954-4_38

CITATIONS READS

33 7,628

3 authors, including:

George Palaigeorgiou Ioannis Kazanidis

University of Western Macedonia International Hellenic University
80 PUBLICATIONS 1,506 CITATIONS 117 PUBLICATIONS 2,022 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by George Palaigeorgiou on 30 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Interactive video for learning: a review of interaction
types, commercial platforms, and design guidelines

George Palaigeorgiou1[0000-0002-8181-8351], Anthia Papadopoulou1, and Ioannis

Kazanidis2[0000-0002-7199-9945]
1University of Western Macedonia, Florina, Greece
{gpalegeo, arkasanthos}@gmail.com
2 Eastern Macedonia & Thrace Institute of Technology, Kavala, Greece

kazanidis@teiemt.gr

Abstract. In recent years, there has been a sharp increase of research in em-
ploying interactive video for learning. More researchers study both the func-
tional and cognitive interactivity affordances of educational interactive video
and try to identify the learning effectiveness of the various supported interac-
tions. In this study, we aim at providing a review of the interactivity types and
their educational value based on the analysis of 18 studies and 13 commercial
interactive video environments. We also analyze whether the commercial envi-
ronments keep up with the research trends. Finally, we provide specific design
guidelines for developing effective educational interactive videos. Such holistic
review approaches help to promote the research field in everyday educational
environments but also reveal its promises and gaps. The educational interactive
video seems to be a fast-changing field which needs further inquiry, while the
available commercial platforms have just started to incorporate functionality
proposed in the literature.

Keywords: Interactive Video, Hypervideo, Video-Based Learning.

1 Introduction

1.1 A Subsection Sample

Video has been identified as one of the most differentiated and effective virtual learn-
ing mediums and video-based learning techniques have been used in various settings
such as the “flipped” classrooms, or MOOCs. Video offers a sensory learning envi-
ronment with a touch of face-to-face human texture that supports learners to under-
stand more and recall information better [1-2]. However, learning with video is not
straightforward, and, for example, it is well-known that linear video may become a
passive experience and may lead to superficial learning and insufficient viability of
the learning effect, what is called the "couch-potato-attitude" [3].
Interactive video - also called “hypervideo”- has been devel-oped for addressing
exactly these issues. Interactive video offers several interactivity options over or next
to the video with the aim of providing a more engaging and active watching experi-

Cite as: Palaigeorgiou, G., Papadopoulou, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2018, June). Interactive Video
for Learning: A Review of Interaction Types, Commercial Platforms, and Design Guidelines.
In International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Educa-
tion (pp. 503-518). Springer, Cham.
2 – Final Draft

ence. Users can answer questions, click on interactive regions over the video, select
how the video story will develop, click on external links, access additional infor-
mation, etc. [4]. New interactive video authoring tools are easy to use and the interac-
tivity features can be built even on top of common video services such as Vimeo or
YouTube (e.g., hapyak.com, raptmedia.com, edpuzzle.com, koantic.com, learn-
worlds.com/). With a few clicks, a video can become interactive without the need of
the typical time-consuming video editing process.
In this study, we propose a new categorization scheme for video interactions and
we describe their educational value. Based on this categorization scheme, we present
the interactivity features of 11 commercial interactive video platforms and comment
on whether they keep up with the research trends. Our study concludes with a compi-
lation of design guidelines for offering effective educational interactive video. Such
holistic reviews help to promote the research field in everyday educational environ-
ments but also to reveal its progress and gaps.

2 Educational Interactive Video

Most studies adopt a standard definition about the interactive video: "A non-linear,
digital video technology that allows stu-dents to have their full attention to education-
al materials and to review each section of video as many times as they wish” [5-6].
Meixner [7] defines interactive video as video-based hypermedia that combines non-
linear video structuring and dynamic information presentation over and next to the
video.
Interactive videos have many educational benefits. Several studies have demon-
strated that interactive videos can increase students’ motivation [8], satisfaction [5,9]
and also performance in learning [4,8]. Video interactivity is considered as flexible,
motivating [6] and entertaining [7]. Interactive videos facilitate differentiated and
personalized learning since they allow learners to act independently, follow their path
and maintain their pace [10,11]. They increase learners’ satisfaction over the educa-
tional process and transform passive watchers into active learners.
Wouters et al. [12] support that there are two layers of learning interactivity, the
first layer is the functional interactivity on students’ actions and the second layer con-
cerns cognitive interactivity which refers to calls for action that trigger cognitive and
meta cognitive processes. For example, a challenge to predict what will happen next
in the video could cause students to experience an expectation failure [13] and thus,
come into conflict with their previous knowledge. Both interactivity layers seem to
have significant learning results [14]. Similarly, other studies have shown that as stu-
dents navigate freely in interactive videos with the help of indexes, pointers, and ex-
ternal links, they organize better information, find deeper meanings and link them to
previous knowledge, experience and mental structures [14, 15]. Cairncross &
Mannion [16] also underlined that the interactive video increases students’ ability to
transfer knowledge from the short-term to the long-term memory. All of the above
contribute to an enjoying educational experience with enhanced learning outcomes
and better knowledge reten-tion [14].
 3

3 Interaction Types

In a recent review, Schoeffmann et al. [10] classify video interaction methods in the
following categories: Video Annotation, Video Browsing, Video Navigation, Video
Editing, Video Recommendation, Video Retrieval and Video Summarization. Another
classification of interactive elements can be found in Seidel’s research about interac-
tion design patterns on video [17] while Papadopoulou and Palaigeorgiou [4] pro-
posed interactivity categories based on their pedagogical purposes, i.e., rhetoric ques-
tions or inductive questions.
We analyzed eighteen studies concerning interactive video, as well as eleven
commercial interactive video platforms and created a new classification scheme in-
cluding five main interaction categories describing the educational opportunities of
interactive video: Authors’ annotations, Users’ Annotations, Between Users Interac-
tion, Video Navigation, and Summarization. Interaction types found in each study or
platform are shown in Table 1. Many categories include more detailed interaction
types.

3.1 Author’s Annotations

Annotations are media (images, text, etc.) that appear inside or next to the video with
the aim of facilitating understanding. Their display is synchronized with specific vid-
eo frames. New interactive video platforms enable the author to add such elements in
a matter of seconds. Annotations can be static, without any interactivity for the learn-
ers, or dynamic, but both aim at promoting learners’ engagement with the presented
learning content [20]. Most common author’s annotations are:

Overlay elements. Overlay elements include all types of elements that can be added
over the video such as textual representations (i.e., titles that describe objects), imag-
es, hyperlinks (to websites, PDF documents, social media services or other videos),
maps and audio-files. These elements are positioned usually in relation to the visual
structure of the presented video frames and are synchronized for specific duration.
They are easy to add and may serve different learning objectives.

Side Media. Side media refer also to elements that are synchronized with segments of
the video but which are presented side-by-side (i.e., slides, narration text, etc.). Side
media usually create a peripheral supportive learning area next to the video. Usually
they are more expressiveness with fewer appearance re-strictions since they do not
alter the video layout regardless of their size or type.

Highlighting. Highlighting refers to the various kinds of pointers or objects that are
added over the video frames with the main goal of drawing learners’ attention to spe-
cific frame areas. Highlight-ing elements guide learners’ attention and provoke them
to focus, think or discuss with their partners the most significant issues presented.
4 – Final Draft

Captions. Since videos are often dedicated to a diverse audience with different lan-
guage competencies and abilities, most platforms offer the possibility to provide cap-
tions [17]. Interestingly, the captions mechanism can also be used as a method for
providing different levels of textual descriptions which the learners can select based
on their understanding or learning needs.

Embedded questions. Embedded questions are probably the most often used feature
of educational interactive videos. Questions foster a more profound engagement of
viewers and also serve as assessment tools. Embedded questions increase the interac-
tion of the students with the learning materials [15]. Their display may stop the video
to wait for learner’s answer. However, there are also cases where the questions are
optional and appear together with a timer that shows for how much time the questions
will be displayed on the video.

Hotspots. Hotspots are clickable areas in a video (e.g., buttons, regions) which
may present further information, navigate learners to external links or different posi-
tions inside the video or function as answers to embedded questions. Hotspots make
possible interactivity which is directly connected with the contents of the video.

3.2 Users’ annotations

Users’ annotations concern personalized learning actions such as keeping personal

notes, adding annotations or bookmarks, creating spotlights and marks on the video
[18]. Τhe annotations are automatically synchronized with the time they were created
and work both as reflection triggers and as a navigational means. Annotating the vid-
eo promotes a feeling of video ownership to the viewer and usually results in more
active engagement.

3.3 Between users’ Interaction

The introduction of synchronous and asynchronous interactions among video viewers

is a promising approach to increase constructive user engagement with the video con-
tent. Such interactions try to strengthen the community awareness and to take ad-
vantage of the collective intelligence of watching a video for learning purposes. For
example, the visualization of other learners’ traces on the video progress bar enable
users to identify which segments of the video are more viewed and probably are con-
sidered as more important. Other examples of between users’ interaction are com-
menting, peer annotations and peer assessment [17].

3.4 Video Summarization

Summarization is a method that enhances learners’ engagement with video content
since it concerns the creation of a short clip or a textual outline of the entire video.
This summary of the video aims at helping learners organize better the information
 5

presented and reduce the time spent on revisiting the contents. Summarization tech-
niques can be a) automatic, meaning that videos can be summarized based on image
processing, text or keyword extraction techniques, [19] or b) non-automatic, meaning
that viewers can create summaries by selecting specific parts of the original video
manually. The latter can be considered as a constructive and knowledge-building
experience since students have to think and link several video segments in a meaning-
ful way for them [20].

3.5 Navigation

According to Meixner and Gold [21], video navigation can be discerned in two cate-
gories: navigation options appearing at the end of the video and global navigation.
When a video reaches its end, usually plenty of options appear promoting different
navigation actions, i.e., see a related video, replay the video, etc. Global navigation
concerns the affordances that allow users to access fast and with accuracy, exact
points in the video that present content of special interest to them, e.g., a table of con-
tents or a search function. Frequently interactive video navigational options are:

Table of Contents. Navigating randomly on a timeline or a video progress bar is a

time-consuming task. A table of contents provides quick access to different content
segments inside a video. Each section comprises a meaningful unit that is summarized
in the section heading inside a table of contents or the progress bar. Therefore, table
of contents also help users to get an overview of the whole video contents.

Content visualization for video browsing. Content visualizations are similar to con-
tent tables since they provide a clickable overview of the video contents [21]. Howev-
er, they are created automatically by capturing still frames of the video in several
ways. Content visualizations are a more vivid way of disclosing the contents of a
video and help the learners select visually their next steps.

History Browser. History browsers are created based on user’s navigation history
inside the video. First users’ navigational actions are recorded, and then simple mech-
anisms are offered to quickly find and watch previously viewed intervals. For exam-
ple, segments of the video that the user found interesting maybe highlighted [22].
Interestingly, history browsers add value to users’ prior navigation actions.

Search Function. A search function offers users the chance to be transferred to spe-
cific video segments according to their text or visual input. Searching the video usual-
ly requires pre-processing its contents with image, audio, and video analysis methods
and extracting meta-data that index important information for later search and retriev-
al purposes. These metadata may also be added/updated manually by the video au-
thor.
6 – Final Draft

360-degree video and Multicamera. Many new interactive video platforms provide
the viewer with 360º video experience usually enriched with additional interactions
(e.g., Page-flow, Wirewax). Similarly, multi-camera (or multi-view) video also offers
viewers the opportunity to navigate between different angles of the same scene. In
both cases, the user decides what to see from a predetermined set of options. These
options provide a more personalized experience of watching the video.

Playback speed. Users in most current video platforms can configure the video speed
as well as the direction of the playback. The various speeds allow the learners to set a
learning pace that is adequate for the different segments of the video and their prior
understanding. This possibility is also useful if the user wants to take notes or add
annotations [17].

Branching. Some interactive video platforms provide the opportunity to link separate
videos in a tree-like structure and let users decide which route to follow by clicking
on interactive elements over the video (ex. SIVA Producer [12]). Quite often the users
cannot identify when each separate video starts or stops and they feel like watching a
single video. Branching enables users to drive their experience, skip content, and
study information at a self-determined pace. In that case, each user watches a different
version of the video. Branched videos help learners stay focused in the content and be
more engaged.

Table 1. Video interaction types.

Studies and Studies and

Interaction types Interaction types
Tools Tools
Creator’s annotations Video Navidation
Overlay elements [31][32] Table of Contents [42]
Side Media [33] Contents visualization [43][44]
Highlights [33] History Broswer [32]
e.g., Wirewaz,
Hotspots Search Function [45]
Vidzor
Captions [31] Multicamera – 360o Video [46]
Embedded Questions [15][34] Playback speed [47]
e.g., Wirewax,
User’s annotations Branching
HapYak
Overlay elements [35] Between users’ interactions
Highlights [34] Discussions around content [37]
Linked Comments [36] Pop-ups [38]
Video Summarisation Comment ratings [39]
Automatic Summariza-
[40] User traces [24]
tion
Non Automatic Summa-
[41]
rization
 7

4 Educational perspectives

An interesting question is what kind of cognitive and meta cognitive processes may
be triggered by each interaction type, as this would help us better understand interac-
tive video’s educational potential. In Table 2, we offer a proposal of all learning ob-
jectives that may be addressed from each interaction type. Instructors exploit interac-
tive video mainly to address the following learning goals:
Active studying of the video content. Note taking, highlight-ing or creating per-
sonal summarized video improves focus and active learning since students have to
listen/watch carefully and decide what to include to their notes, they have to empha-
size and organize information better. The related actions produce a condensed record
for later study and review.
Draw attention to critical information. Information pro-cessing can be facilitated
through signaling. Mautone and Mayer [31] argued that signaling can help to empha-
size particular aspects of content (and therefore reduce split-attention effect) but also
to underline the correlations between concepts, which is often difficult for the stu-
dents. Highlighting and hotspots draw the attention to specific visual aspects of the
video. Thus they support mental selection and organization during observation.
Information recall. Information recall is mainly achieved through embedded
questions and the various means of replaying the video, from the table of contents to
looping (replaying the video). For example, pre-adjunct questions help in attention
stimulation, while post-adjunct questions promote information recall.
Reflection. Reflection is one of the critical stages of learning [23]. Through reflec-
tion prompts within a video (e.g., the video pauses in the context of a problematic
situation and urges the students to reflect about strategies they have used in the past)
students inspect the video contents critically. Shared users’ annotations and traces
also trigger students to discuss, reflect and draw conclusions about their strategies.
Knowledge construction. Interactive video may include hy-perlinks and choices
that function as knowledge construction tools and help learners own the learning pro-
cess and think more productively. Hyperlinks and branching allow a specific topic to
be explored in multiple ways using different concepts or themes while facilitating
cognitive flexibility on knowledge construction [24]. Non-automatic summarization
also may offer a constructive learning experience.
Cognitive conflict. Cognitive conflict occurs when a student’s mental balance is
disturbed by experiences that do not match with their current understanding [25]. This
conflict can lead to conceptual change over topics students have misunderstand-ings.
Cognitive conflict can be applied through embedded questions into the video that will
help students expose their misconceptions, realize their inaccuracy and their inability
to predict what will happen next. Video has the advantage of improving the plausibil-
ity of the presented proofs.
Collaborative learning. Although collaborative learning is the less recognizable
feature of an interactive video, it is one of the most powerful. Shared annotations or
8 – Final Draft

notes, commenting connected with specific time frames, summative user traces and
ratings can all activate the collective intelligence of the viewers of the same video.
Users’ actions and comments are situation-driven and their exchange can support
learners’ understanding and critical thinking.
In the following table, the video interaction types are related with the different
learning objectives considered.

Table 2. Interaction types and learning objectives

Knowledge construction
Information recall

Cognitive conflict
Active Studying

Collaboration
Interaction types

Reflection
Attention

Creator’s annotations
Overlay elements X X
Highlights X X
Hotspots X X
Clickable elements X X
Side media X X
Embedded Questions X X X X
User’s Annotations
Overlay elements X X X X
Highlights X X X X
Linked Comments X X X X
Between users’ interactions
Discussions around content X X X X X
Pop-ups X X
Comment ratings X X
User traces X X X
Video Summarisation
Automatic Summarization X
Non Automatic Summarization X X
Video Navidation
Table of Contents X X
Contents visualization X X
Search Function X X
History Broswer X X
Multicamera – 360o Video X X
Playback speed X X
Branching X X
 9

5 Commercial interactive video platforms

Although many studies concern interactive video platforms, most of them are created
as research products and are not available to the public and, therefore, have limited
practical value. However, there are several commercial interactive video platforms
which provide a variety of tools and features. This section presents the most well-
known commercial platforms along with their main characteristics. Platforms includ-
ed in our study can be exploited for educational use, while the platforms excluded are
pursuing interactivity for marketing purposes. As seen in Table 3, most platforms
already support several types of interactivity.

Table 3. Platforms and supported interactions

Comment
PlayPosit

Wiremax
EdPuzzle

RaptMe-

HapYak
Adventr
Adways

Bubble
Vidzor

Learn-
Interaction types

words
H5P
dia
Creator’s annotations
Overlay Elements X X X X X X X
Highlights X X X X X X X X X X X
Hotspots X X X X X X
Side media
Embedded Questions X X X X X X X X X X X
User’s Annotations
Overlay Elements
Highlights
Linked Comments X
Between users’ interactions
Discussions around content X X
Pop-ups X
Comment ratings X
User traces
Video Summarization
Automatic Summarization X
Non-Automatic Summarization
Video Navigation
Table of Contents X X X
Contents visualization
Search Function
History Brower
Multicamera – 360o Video X
Playback speed X
Branching X X X
10 – Final Draft

PlayPosit (https://www.playposit.com/) is a free online learn-ing environment to

create and share interactive video lessons with groups of students. PlayPosit is de-
signed to be used in flipped, and blended environments.
Adways (http://www.adways.com/) interactive video technology provides users
with a significant number of possibilities for interactive video design. The instructor
can show additional information inside or outside the video and give the ability to
students to alter the storytelling of a video depending on their choices and actions.
EdPuzzle (https://edpuzzle.com/) provides a simple video editing toolset that may
transform a video into an interactive lesson that is personal, engaging and effective.
ED puzzle provides three main interactive elements: a crop tool, addition of voiceo-
ver/audio notes and embedded questions with feedback.
Adventr (http://www.adventr.tv/) helps users design interac-tive videos and also
provides actionable analytics. Adventr is a simple platform where content makers
drag and drop their clips into templates. The platform enables designers to create
specific paths of videos based on users’ responses.
Wirewax (https://www.wirewax.com/) is widely used in edu-cation, in marketing,
and in entertainment. The platform pro-vides a variety of interactive elements such as
automated hotspots (e.g., automatically detects people, objects, and products).
Hotspots also can follow the motion of the object tracked as it moves in the scene.
Wirewax supports branching, chaptering, 360º Interactive video and slider/multi-
video playback.
Vidzor (http://vidzor.com/) is an interactive video platform that enables users to
create an engaging video with HTML5 technology. Designers can upload their files
and add certain interactive elements: Skipping, looping, video linking (which con-
nects two videos), clickable hotspots, closed or open ques-tions, votes, donations, a
form builder for getting textual input and clickable maps. The platform also provides
teachers with analytics of users’ views.
RaptMedia (http://www.raptmedia.com/) is an interactive video application that
combines a path-editor and an interactive video composer. Creators can build person-
alized view paths and also add clickable hotspots on each separate video.
H5P (https://h5p.org/) is an HTML5-based open source inter-active video platform
that allows users to create video experi-ences with multiple response questions, fill in
the blank ques-tions, interactive summaries, single choice question sets, sim-ple over-
lays with text and images, tables, labels, and links.
Comment Bubble (https://commentbubble.com/) combines a student-response
component and an analytics tool for review-ing users’ responses. Creators can add
videos from Vimeo or Youtube and ask for feedback from their viewers as they watch
the video. That way, creators can assess learners’ understanding or opinions upon
certain moments. Quick comment categories allow creators to specify the type of
feedback they would like to get.
HapYaks (https://corp.hapyak.com) works with any digital video and offers a
template library that lets instructors to in-stantly add or modify overlays, chapters,
links, branching, embedded questions and a lot more.
LearnWorlds (https://www.learnworlds.com/) is an online course platform that al-
lows instructors to design courses that may include questionnaires, tests, e-books, and
 11

interactive videos. LearnWorlds interactive videos enable creators to add several

types of annotations (hotspots, augmented elements, text phrases, titles, etc.) clickable
or not, add overlays as reflection activities or add questions with feedback. Learn-
Worlds offers a rich library of pre-designed interaction templates.
As seen from the table above, most commercial tools are fo-cused on facilitating
their customers’ needs and, hence, they are mainly offering a rich variety of annota-
tions for the instructors. There is a limited focus on personalized tools for the video
viewers and even less interest for taking advantage of the collaborative potential of
interactive video. Summarization and advanced navigation facilities have also not
been exploited extensively. The commercial interactive platforms do have a lot of
educational potential to unlock.

6 Designing Educational Interactive Videos

Until this point, we have presented different interactivity types, their pedagogical
value and various commercial interactive video platforms. The last link of this value
chain is guiding the development of effective educational interactive video. As previ-
ously stated, when designing interactive educational videos, instructors should not be
concentrated only on the functional interactivity, but more importantly, they should
emphasize on the underlying cognitive interactivity [26] (e.g., feedback after the stu-
dent's answer). Although there are plenty of guidelines for developing educational
video [27], here, we try to compile a set of guidelines concerning instructors’ annota-
tions in interactive videos:
Avoid heavily annotated video. Designers should avoid adding extraneous infor-
mation in their video, which may be interesting but doesn’t contribute to the learning
goal (a process known as weeding). However, information that may be extraneous for
a novice learner may be helpful for a more expert-like learner [25]. In interactive
video, there is always the possibility to address different audiences through non-
mandatory annotations.
Set fixed positions for the annotations. Video designers should determine fixed
locations for annotations at the margins of the video frame or even outside the video
[17]. This way, viewers can hide them individually or all together when they want to
focus on the video itself or return to the annotations later.
Let users decide if they want side content. In the same spirit with the previous
guideline, viewers tend to split their attention between the video and the synchronized
side contents, and, hence, cognitive overload may be provoked. It is crucial to provide
users with the possibility to decide whether side content should be displayed smaller,
larger, or not at all.
Use pre-adjunct questions. Pre-adjunct questions serve as a method or tool for
stimulating the learner’s attention and motivate them to focus more on specific as-
pects of the learning material. Such questions help students to form a focused per-
spective for watching the video and help them to select and organize the presented
information.
12 – Final Draft

Create reflective pauses. Reflection prompts are a vital component of successful

learning. When video pauses and urges students to think about their choices, they
reflect on how they performed a task and deepen their understanding. Students expect
that their thoughts will have some relation with what will follow in the video.
Induce information recall. Post-adjunct questions (at the end of a video or a video
segment) reinforce the presented knowledge and encourage learners to build explana-
tions and expectations that go beyond the learning material [28]. Use either memori-
zation (recognition or recall) questions or application questions. A non-automatic
video summarization activity may also be considered as a post-adjunct reflection ac-
tion.
Provoke predictions. Use questions while a video is playing and give learners the
opportunity to predict what is going to happen next. Α challenge to predict the next
event or effect, guide viewers to expose their misconceptions and evaluate their un-
derstanding. Video, as mentioned earlier, has the advantage that it is perceived as a
trustworthy source of information by students.
Provide formative as well as summative assessment. Informal quizzes and ques-
tionnaires can be included in specific points of the video and may provide meaningful
feedback that guides students focus and next navigational choices [29].
Give feedback to students’ answers. Feedback is essential for providing the nec-
essary scaffolding to learners and close the gap between current and desired perfor-
mance [30].
Allow your learners define the development of the video story. When designing
a video, it is essential to allow a second-layer navigation, especially when the video is
too long. With second-layer navigation [21], viewers can jump to specific scenes in
the table of contents or the graph structure. With branching, instructors can offer mul-
tipath videos for their students. Second-layer navigation demands an excellent design,
production, and structuring of the video content in order to be feasible to offer a uni-
fied learning experience.
Encourage Replays. Designers should include enough triggers to make learners
want to watch the video again. Repeating an interactive video helps reinforcing its
contents.
Track Interactions. Students’ video behavior should be tracked and reported back
so that an instructor can identify learners who are struggling with specific interactions
[31]. Recording and understanding interactive video analytics is a decisive part of
designing successful interactions. Metrics will help interactive video developers to
understand their learning audience and optimize the interactivity options.

7 Discussion And Conclusion

In this study, we explored all aspect of interactive video’s educational value: we pre-
sented a categorization of interactivity types, we discussed their educational value, we
presented commercial interactive video platforms while we also offered a set of
guidelines on how to develop interactive videos.
There are three conclusions from our review:
 13

• As seen in Table 1, the studies concerning the educational value of different inter-
action types are a few and a lot more research should be done to reveal the multi-
perspective educational opportunities of interactive video.
• As seen in Table 3, most commercial tools are focused only on facilitating instruc-
tors in designing annotations and are less interested on empowering learners to
constructively watch videos. Table 2 reveals that all video interactivity types can
address a variety of learning objectives. Hence, school and university instructors
do not have yet in their disposal the full range of educational interactive video af-
fordances.
• Interactive video design is an uncharted design space, and existing guidelines offer
an abstract understanding of what an instructor should do. Most propositions derive
from cognitive multimedia learning theory while the last few years some studies
have started to propose strategies of how to develop embedded questions.
The interactive video seems to be a fast-changing field, and the available commer-
cial platforms have just started to incorporate functionality appearing in research stud-
ies. The most important aim of the educational interactive video is to promote active
processing through “in context” cognitive interactivity. A considerable number of
studies highlight the importance of going beyond interactive video’s technical charac-
teristics and emphasize the need to focus on the pedagogical results and the design
requirements of video interactivity.

References
1. Fern, A., Givan, R., Siskind, J. M.: Specific-to-general learning for temporal events with
application to learning event definitions from video. Journal of Artificial Intelligence Re-
search, 17, 379–449 (2011).
2. Syed, M. R.: Diminishing the distance in distance education. IEEE MultiMedia 8(3), 18-20
(2001).
3. Ertelt, A. Renkl, A., Spada, H.: Making a difference: exploiting the full potential of in-
structionally designed on-screen videos. In Proceedings of the 7th international confer-
ence on Learning sciences, pp. 154 -160. ACM (2006).
4. Papadopoulou, A., & Palaigeorgiou, G. Interactive Video, Tablets and Self-Paced Learn-
ing in the Classroom: Preservice Teachers Perceptions. In 13th International Conference
on Cognition and Exploratory Learning in Digital Age, pp. 195-202. IADIS (2016).
5. Dimou, A., Tsoumakas, G., Mezaris, V., Kompatsiaris, I., & Vlahavas, I. An empirical
study of multi-label learning methods for video annotation. In Seventh International Work-
shop on Content-Based Multimedia Indexing (CBMI'09), pp. 19-24. IEEE (2009).
6. Weston, T. J., & Barker, L. Designing, implementing, and evaluating web-based learning
modules for university students. Educational Technology. 41(4), 15-22 (2001).
7. Meixner, B. Hypervideos and interactive multimedia presentations. ACM Computing Sur-
veys (CSUR). 50(1), 9 (2017).
8. Krammer, K., Ratzka, N., Klieme, E., Lipowsky, F., Pauli, C., & Reusser, K. Learning
with classroom videos: Conception and first results of an online teacher-training program.
ZDM, 38(5), 422-432 (2006).
9. Dror, I. E. Technology enhanced learning: The good, the bad, and the ugly. Pragmatics &
Cognition, 16(2), 215-223 (2008).
14 – Final Draft

10. Schoeffmann, K., Hudelist, M. A., & Huber, J. Video interaction tools: a survey of recent
work. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 48(1), 14 (2015).
11. Palaigeorgiou, G., Chloptsidou, I., & Lemonidis, C. Computational estimation in the class-
room with tablets, interactive selfie video and self-regulated learning. In Interactive Mo-
bile Communication, Technologies and Learning (IMCL), pp. 860-871. Springer (2017).
12. Meixner, B., John, S., & Handschigl, C. Siva suite: Framework for hypervideo creation,
playback and management. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM international conference on
Multimedia, pp. 713-716. ACM (2015, October).
13. Schank, R. Virtual Learning. A Revolutionary Approach to Building a Highly Skilled
Workforce. McGraw-Hill, 11 West 19th Street, New York, NY 10011 (1997).
14. Cherrett, T., Wills, G., Price, J., Maynard, S., & Dror, I. E. Making training more cogni-
tively effective: Making videos interactive. British Journal of Educational Technology,
40(6), 1124-1134 (2009).
15. Vural, O. F. The Impact of a Question-Embedded Video-based Learning Tool on E-
learning. Educational Sciences: Theory and Practice, 13(2), 1315-1323 (2013).
16. Cairncross, S., & Mannion, M. Interactive multimedia and learning: Realizing the bene-
fits. Innovations in education and teaching international, 38(2), 156-164 (2001).
17. Seidel, N. Making web video accessible: interaction design patterns for assistive video
learning environments. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Pattern Lan-
guages of Programs, p. 17. ACM. (2015).
18. Bulterman, D. C. Creating peer-level video annotations for web-based multimedia.
In Proceedings of the Seventh Eurographics conference on Multimedia, pp. 49-57. Eu-
rographics Association (2004).
19. Yoshitaka, A., & Sawada, K. Personalized video summarization based on behavior of
viewer. In Eighth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet
Based Systems (SITIS), pp. 661-667. IEEE (2012).
20. Seidel, N. Interaction design patterns for spatio-temporal annotations in video learning en-
vironments. In Proceedings of the 20th European Conference on Pattern Languages of
Programs, p. 16. ACM (2015).
21. Meixner, B., & Gold, M. Second-Layer Navigation in Mobile Hypervideo for Medical
Training. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling, pp. 382-394. Springer,
Cham (2016).
22. Al-Hajri, A., Miller, G., Fels, S., & Fong, M. Video navigation with a personal viewing
history. In IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 352-369. Springer, Ber-
lin, Heidelberg (2013).
23. Van den Boom, G., Paas, F., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Van Gog, T. Reflection prompts
and tutor feedback in a web-based learning environment: Effects on students' self-
regulated learning competence. Computers in Human Behavior, 20(4), 551-567 (2004).
24. Spiro, R. J. Cognitive flexibility and hypertext: Theory and technology for the nonlinear
and multidimensional traversal of complex subject matter. In Cognition, education, and
multimedia, 177-220. Routledge (2012).
25. Borkowski, J. G., Carr, M., Rellinger, E., & Pressley, M. Self-regulated cognition: Inter-
dependence of metacognition, attributions, and self-esteem. Dimensions of thinking and
cognitive instruction, 1, 53-92 (1990).
26. Chen, X. Y., & Segall, Z. XV-Pod: An emotion aware, affective mobile video player.
In 2009 World Congress on Computer Science and Information Engineering, pp. 277-281.
IEEE (2009, March).
27. Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learn-
ing. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 43-52. (2003).
 15

28. Merrill, M. D. First principles of instruction. Educational technology research and devel-
opment, 50(3), 43-59 (2002).
29. Shute, V. J., Ventura, M., & Kim, Y. J. Assessment and learning of qualitative physics in
newton's playground. The Journal of Educational Research, 106(6), 423-430 (2013).
30. Nicol, D. J., & Macfarlane‐Dick, D. Formative assessment and self‐regulated learning: A
model and seven principles of good feedback practice. Studies in higher education, 31(2),
199-218. (2006).
31. Giannakos, M. N., Chorianopoulos, K., & Chrisochoides, N. Making sense of video ana-
lytics: Lessons learned from clickstream interactions, attitudes, and learning outcome in a
video-assisted course. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed
Learning, 16(1) (2015).
32. Meixner, B., & Kosch, H. Creating and presenting interactive non-linear video stories with
the SIVA Suite. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Interactive
Content Consumption at EuroITV, pp. 160-165 (2016).
33. Onita, M., Petan, S., & Vasiu, R.. Review of Interactive Video–Romanian Project Pro-
posal. International Education Studies, 9(3), 24 (2016).
34. Shroff, N., Turaga, P., & Chellappa, R. Video précis: Highlighting diverse aspects of vide-
os. IEEE Transactions on Multimedia, 12(8), 853-868 (2010).
35. Meixner, B., Matusik, K., Grill, C., & Kosch, H. Towards an easy to use authoring tool for
interactive non-linear video. Multimedia Tools and Applications, 70(2), 1251-1276 (2014)
36. Schummer, T., & Lukosch, S. Patterns for computer-mediated interaction. John Wiley &
Sons (2013).
37. Lauer, T., & Trahasch, S. Strukturierte verankerte Diskussion als Form kooperativen Ler-
nens mit eLectures. In Workshop Proceedings DeLFI, pp. 31-37 (2005).
38. Müller, M., Otero, N., Alissandrakis, A., & Milrad, M. Increasing user engagement with
distributed public displays through the awareness of peer interactions. In Proceedings of
the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive Displays, pp. 23-29. ACM (2015).
39. Dimitrova, V., Mitrovic, A., Piotrkowicz, A., Lau, L., & Weerasinghe, A. Using learning
analytics to devise interactive personalised nudges for active video watching.
In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on User Modeling, Adaptation and Personalization,
pp. 22-31. ACM. (2017).
40. Ketterl, Μ., Mertens, Ρ., And Vornberger, Ο. Vorlesungsaufzeichnungen 2.0. In Lernen–
Organisation–Gesellschaft, eCampus-Symposium der Osnabrücker Hochschulen, pp. 2-5.
(2008).
41. Bagga, A., Hu, J., and Zhong, J., “U.S. Patent, No. 8,872,979”. Washington, DC: U.S. Pa-
tent and Trademark Office (2014).
42. Herron, C. An investigation of the effectiveness of using an advance organizer to introduce
video in the foreign language classroom. The Modern Language Journal, 78(2), 190-198
(1994).
43. Cobârzan, C., Hudelist, M. A., & Del Fabro, M. Content-based video browsing with col-
laborating mobile clients. In International Conference on Multimedia Modeling, pp. 402-
406. Springer, Cham (2014).
44. Hürst, W., & Darzentas, D. HiStory: a hierarchical storyboard interface design for video
browsing on mobile devices. In Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Mo-
bile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (p. 17). ACM (2012).
45. Meixner, B. Annotated Interactive Non-linear Video - Software Suite, Download and
Cache Management, PhD Dissertation, Universität Passau. https://opus4.kobv.de/opus4-
uni-passau/files/222/Meixner_Britta.pdf (2014).
 16 – Final Draft

46. Zhang, X., Toni, L., Frossard, P., Zhao, Y., & Lin, C. Optimized receiver control in inter-
active multiview video streaming systems. In 2017 IEEE International Conference
on Communications (ICC), pp. 1-6. IEEE (2017).
47. Kim, D. H., Chang, W. S., Lee, D. H., and Hwang, S. T., “U.S. Patent Application No.
15/338,965”, Washington, DC: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (2017).

Cite as: Palaigeorgiou, G., Papadopoulou, A., & Kazanidis, I. (2018, June). Interactive Video
for Learning: A Review of Interaction Types, Commercial Platforms, and Design Guidelines.
In International Conference on Technology and Innovation in Learning, Teaching and Educa-
tion (pp. 503-518). Springer, Cham.

View publication stats