Watching Screencasts Help Students Learn APA Format Better Than Reading the Manual

Abstract

Improving students’ knowledge and application of American Psychological Association (APA) formatting rules typically involves spending class time reviewing or practicing these rules. Screencasts (narrated lectures with real-time screen capture) can reduce the time professors devote to teaching APA format. In addition to imparting rules, screencasts illustrate how to implement rules in a digital environment. Across two experiments, we examined whether screencasts effectively taught students how to generally set up a paper and a title page in APA format. Compared to students who accessed the APA Manual, students who viewed screencasts demonstrated significantly greater gains in knowledge and corrected more errors in a digital environment. When technological demands were higher, students found the screencasts more informative, interesting, and useful than the APA Manual.

Keywords

APA format screencast APA manual

The American Psychological Association (APA, 2013) specifies applying elements of APA style as a critical learning outcome for undergraduate psychology majors. Accordingly, professors often require research papers that conform to APA style and assess students’ mastery of APA style and formatting (e.g., Fallahi, Wood, Austad, & Fallahi, 2006; Luttrell, Bufkin, Eastman, & Miller, 2010). Whereas APA style is an approach to writing that promotes objectivity in communicating scientific discoveries, APA format involves the prescriptions used to standardize reports across the scientific community (Schwartz, Landrum, & Gurung, 2013). In the present study, we examined whether viewing screencast tutorials helped students learn not only the rules of APA format, but how to implement such rules using Microsoft Word.

Students have multiple ways to learn APA formatting; they can refer to samples from textbooks (Ernst & Michel, 2006), online resources (Van Note Chism & Weerakoon, 2012), and the APA Manual itself. However, each of these approaches has caveats. Samples in textbooks and online resources may contain errors. Indeed, Ernst and Michel (2006) reported that research methods texts containing sample APA-formatted papers contained between 1 and 21 errors. Consequently, Ernst and Michel (2006) suggested that students consult the APA Manual as the definitive source for APA formatting. But, Van Note Chism and Weerakoon (2012) reported that 67% of graduate students considered the APA Manual “so dense with information [as to be] overwhelming” (p. 33). Students found the organization of the APA Manual to be unclear, struggled to use the index effectively, and complained that the illustrative examples—of references, in particular—were unhelpful. Although these resources might help students (imperfectly) internalize the rules of APA format and spot errors, students would not necessarily learn how to apply their knowledge when asked to produce a paper in APA format.

Devoting substantial classroom instruction time improves student learning of APA style and format. Fallahi, Wood, Austad, and Fallahi (2006) found that APA format, particularly referencing, improved by 37% from the first to the fifth writing assignment within a class. Notably, class time was used to review particular rules, and extensive feedback was provided on each assignment. Jorgensen and Marek (2013) reported that students who attended three, professor-led supplemental workshops identified approximately 25% more APA style and format errors at posttest. By contrast, students who attended sessions where they had access only to PowerPoint slides based on the APA Manual improved error detection by approximately 2.5%. Taking an entire course geared toward teaching scientific writing (including APA format) also significantly improved student knowledge of APA format by 32.8% compared to 15.7% in another higher level psychology course (Luttrell, Bufkin, Eastman, & Miller, 2010). Taken together, these findings suggest that teaching students to master APA format requires substantial classroom time, hands-on deliberate practice, and focused feedback from professors.

In addition to classroom instruction, active learning exercises assigned outside of class help students learn APA format. Franz and Spitzer (2006) examined whether digitally recreating an APA-formatted paper as a homework assignment helped students master applying APA format within their writing. Students who created this electronic template produced fewer APA formatting errors on a subsequent posttest than students who simply received a checklist with references to specific pages in the APA Manual. Further, the template exercise coupled with the checklist produced the best outcomes. However, students reported that creating a template, while useful, was quite boring. It is unclear how much time students spent outside of class creating their templates. Thus, students learned how to format their papers well, but their learning may have been inefficient.

Is there an effective and efficient way to teach APA format that capitalizes on deliberate practice, reduces investment of class time, and maintains student interest? One promising alternative is to teach students APA format through screencasts or virtual lectures that capture their professor narrating procedures in real time. Screencasts are thought to be particularly useful in illustrating step-by-step procedures within particular software packages (Peterson, 2007). According to Mayer and colleagues, screencasts that are well sequenced, coherent, and conversational can reduce cognitive load or feeling overwhelmed with information (e.g., Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Certain screencasting programs, such as Camtasia, also allow authors to annotate information, pan and zoom to focus attention on relevant details, and animate objects to maintain or recapture audience interest. Further, Tekinarslan (2014) reported that using screencasts to model straightforward database applications (e.g., tables, queries, forms) increased professors’ perceptions of student independence and reduced class time spent disabusing students of common misconceptions.

Well-constructed screencasts help students develop knowledge (e.g., Morris & Chikwa, 2014) and skills (e.g., Lloyd & Robertson, 2012). Whereas most previous examinations of screencast effectiveness employ a quasi-experimental approach where students have the option of accessing screencasts (e.g., Morris & Chikwa, 2014), Lloyd and Robertson (2012) demonstrated a clear causal link between accessing screencasts and student learning. Students taking an upper-level statistics class were quasi-randomly assigned (balanced by biological sex) to view a screencast or access a text that taught them the procedure and interpretation for an independent t test in SPSS. Students who accessed the screencast outperformed students who used the manual by 19–27% on average. However, in Lloyd and Roberston’s (2012) design, developing knowledge was inextricably coupled with the practical implementation of a procedure. Students may have known a rule (e.g., when to reject a null hypothesis) but may not have demonstrated that knowledge in context (e.g., where to look for the appropriate p value on SPSS output). Thus, it is difficult to dissociate how much the screencast increased knowledge and helped students apply or transfer that knowledge.

The current study determined whether viewing a screencast tutorial improved students’ knowledge and application of APA formatting to a comparable or better extent than accessing the APA Publication Manual (6th ed.). We developed two 10-minutes screencasts illustrating how to generally format an APA paper and how to construct a title page. After randomly assigning students to view a screencast or to use the APA Manual, we evaluated how well students learned the rules of APA format and how well they applied them when correcting an error-ridden paper in Microsoft Word. We also assessed students’ perceptions toward the screencast or the APA Manual.

Our study contributes to the literature in two important ways. First, we examined whether screencasts could effectively and efficiently teach students APA format. If so, using screencasts would potentially free valuable class time and faculty resources. Second, we extended research investigating the causal link between using screencasts, developing knowledge (i.e., the rules of APA format), and transferring or applying that knowledge to a different context (i.e., how to implement that knowledge within Microsoft Word). Our design allowed us to separate knowledge gains from procedural gains.

Consistent with previous literature, we predicted that students who viewed a screencast would demonstrate greater gains in APA knowledge than students who referred to the manual. Further, we expected that students who viewed a screencast would successfully correct more APA formatting errors than would students who used the manual. Finally, we expected that students would perceive a screencast as a more valuable learning resource than the manual.

Experiment 1

Method

Participants

Participants were 40 undergraduates at a regional public university in New England, who opted into a participant pool and received course credit for their participation. All students were enrolled in a psychology class, most at the introductory level. An additional participant was tested but was excluded because he exceeded 26 years of age. Of the entire sample, 72.5% identified as female and 30% identified as underrepresented racial/ethnic students. On average, participants were 19.22 years of age (standard deviation [SD] = 1.90). A majority of participants (67.5%) indicated that they had some exposure to APA format. These students reported receiving exposure to APA format in one to five courses (median = 2) and feeling as if they received moderate exposure to APA format within these courses (M = 3.00, SD = 1.47; scale of 0 to 6). See Table 1 for demographic characteristics of participants assigned to the manual and screencast conditions. Independent t tests and χ² tests of independence revealed no significant differences between groups and weak effect sizes, with one exception: students in the APA Manual condition reported moderately more exposure to APA format than students in the screencast condition (Cramer’s ν = .232).

Table 1.

Demographic Characteristics of Participants in Experiments 1 and 2.

Demographics	Learning Condition
Demographics	Screencast	Manual
Experiment 1
N	19	21
Age	18.95 (1.62)	19.48 (2.14)
Biological sex (% female)	63.2%	81.0%
Race/ethnicity (% racial minority)	68.4%	71.4%
Prior exposure to APA format	21.1%	42.9%
Experiment 2
N	18	19
Age	19.94 (2.21)	20.37 (2.50)
Biological sex (% female)	38.9%	68.4%
Race/ethnicity (% racial minority)	38.9%	42.1%
Prior exposure to APA format	61.1%	68.4%

Note. Standard deviations are given in parentheses. APA = American Psychological Association.

Materials and Procedure

Participants were tested in groups of 1 to 7 students in a small computer lab. Each student sat at a computer terminal separated by dividers for privacy. After signing an informed consent form, participants completed a paper-and-pencil questionnaire and reported: (a) demographic information (e.g., biological sex, age, race/ethnicity), (b) level of prior exposure to APA format on a 7-point scale from 0 (none) to 6 (lots), and (c) confidence applying APA format and using Microsoft Word to properly format a paper on a 7-point scale from 0 (not at all confident) to 6 (extremely confident).

Next, participants answered five four-alternative multiple-choice questions regarding the basic setup of APA-formatted paper, including margins, page numbers, font, line spacing, and the running head. Participants were encouraged to guess when they did not know the answer.

After all participants completed the quiz, the experimenters explained that participants would have the opportunity to learn and apply certain rules of APA formatting. Participants were instructed to turn on the computer monitor and inspect a Microsoft Word for Windows document containing a total of 15 APA formatting errors involving elements tested in the initial quiz (i.e., running head, font, line spacing, etc.). The majority of errors (11 of 15) involved formatting issues whose correction often required specific and likely unfamiliar knowledge of Microsoft Word (e.g., manipulating a header, removing default extra line spacing after hard returns). Participants had 12 min to find and correct as many errors as possible within Microsoft Word.

Each group of participants was randomly assigned to the manual condition or the screencast condition. Students received their assigned resource at the onset of the 12-min error-correction task. Students in the manual condition received the APA Manual and were instructed to use it however they wished. Experimenters clearly instructed participants to refrain from using resources other than the manual. Participants were not given any guidance on which pages would be most relevant for the task.

Students assigned to the screencast condition were instructed to access a 10-min screencast on YouTube illustrating important elements of APA format (Fallon, 2014a). The tutorial, created using Camtasia (Version. 2.0; Camtasia, 2012), modeled how to format margins, font, line spacing, page numbers, and the running head. Thus, the screencast not only imparted the rules of APA format, but also how to implement these rules using Microsoft Word. The tutorial was created using Microsoft Word 2011 for Macintosh; participants were tested on Microsoft Word 2010 for Windows. Consequently, there were some discrepancies between the interface from the tutorial and testing environment. Nevertheless, the overall procedure for formatting was comparable. The description in the YouTube window contained time markers for major elements of the screencast, but students were not directly informed of this feature. Participants were instructed to use the screencast in whatever way they wished—they could pause, fast-forward, or rewind on demand.

When the 12-min test period elapsed, participants saved their corrected excerpts. To assess changes in knowledge, participants completed the same quiz that they encountered at the beginning of the study. Participants could not access any resources while completing the quiz and received no feedback. Finally, participants completed a paper-and-pencil exit questionnaire on which they again rated their confidence in applying APA format and using word-processing software to properly format a paper. Further, participants rated how interesting, informative, and useful they found their assigned resource on a 7-point scale from 0 (not at all) to 6 (extremely). They also indicated their likelihood to using that resource to prepare future APA-formatted papers on a 7-point scale from 0 (not at all likely) to 6 (extremely likely). Participants were then debriefed and thanked for their participation. The entire procedure lasted approximately 30 min.

Results and Discussion

APA Knowledge

To examine changes in APA knowledge, we conducted a 2 × 2 mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with time (before or after error-correction task) as a within-participant variable, learning condition (screencast, manual) as a between-participant variable, and performance on the multiple-choice questions as the dependent variable. Scores on the multiple-choice assessment could range from 0 to 5, with 5 indicating perfect performance. Point-biserial correlations for performance before completing the error-correction task revealed that all items were reliable indicators of overall performance, .48 ≤ r ≤ .69, all ps ≤ .002.

As illustrated in Figure 1, engaging in the error-correction task significantly increased APA knowledge by 24.5%, F(1, 38) = 23.72, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .384. Students who watched the screencast (M = 4.37, SD = 1.01) appeared to outperform students who used the manual (M = 3.57, SD = 1.40). However, the interaction between time and learning condition did not reach statistical significance, F(1, 38) = 2.30, p = .138, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .057. Post error-correction task performance in the screencast condition approached ceiling, which also produced substantial negative skew in the distribution of scores. A follow-up 2 × 2 χ² test for independence revealed that a significantly higher percentage of students in the screencast condition (63.2%) achieved perfect performance on the post error-correction multiple-choice assessment than did students in the manual condition (28.6%), χ²(1, 40) = 4.82, p = .028, Cramer’s ν = .347. Consequently, we conclude that accessing the tutorial improved student knowledge of APA format to a greater extent than referring to the APA Manual.

Figure 1.

Mean number of correct multiple-choice questions before and after completing the error-correction task with the screencast or the manual in Experiment 1. Error bars reflect standard error.

Error Correction

Two raters (the second and third authors) independently and blindly assessed printed copies of participants’ attempts to successfully correct errors in a Microsoft Word document. An error was considered corrected if the participant completely fixed the error. For example, the margins were 1.25 in. on the error-ridden paper. Participants would receive credit for correcting the error if they adjusted the margins to 1 in. but would not receive credit for changing the margins to 0.75 in. Participants rarely inserted mistakes or did not fully correct errors. Consequently, we analyzed only completely corrected errors. Interrater agreement for total errors corrected was high, r(40) = .95, p < .001. Thus, we averaged the raters’ total corrected errors for each participant. The maximum score was 15.

An independent t test revealed that students who accessed the screencast (M = 7.89, SD = 2.71, 95% CI [6.59, 9.20]) corrected 2.11 more errors (14.00%) than students who referred to the manual (M = 5.79, SD = 2.59, 95% CI [4.60, 6.96]), t(38) = 2.52, p = .016, d = .796. Using the screencast not only disproportionately improved students’ knowledge of APA format, it increased the likelihood that students would successfully correct APA formatting errors in a digital environment.

Attitudes Toward Screencasts and the APA Manual

Before and after completing the error-correction task, we asked participants to rate their confidence applying APA rules and their comfort using Microsoft Word to format an APA-style paper. We conducted a 2 × 2 repeated-measures multivariate analysis of variance using time (before and after error-correction task) as a within-participants factor and learning condition (screencast, manual) as a between-participants factor with two dependent variables: confidence applying APA rules and comfort using Microsoft Word for formatting as dependent variables.

Overall, confidence improved after completing the error-correction task, Wilks’ λ = .42, F(2, 37) = 25.42, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .579, and gains were more pronounced for the screencast condition, Wilks’ λ = .22, F(2, 37) = 5.23, p = .010, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .220. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs using .025 as the adjusted α confirmed that students who accessed the screencast felt more confident about applying APA rules, F(1, 38) = 10.38, p = .003, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .215, and using Microsoft Word for APA formatting, F(1, 38) = 8.45, p = .006, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .182, than did students who referred to the APA Manual. Means and SDs are reported in Table 2. Confidence about APA rules and applying such rules within Microsoft Word were initially very low and close to floor levels, which created substantial positive skew and heterogeneity in confidence ratings.

Table 2.

Participants’ Self-Reported Confidence in Applying APA Rules and in Using Microsoft Word to Generate an APA-Formatted Paper Before and After Completing the Error-Correction Task Using a Screencast or the APA Manual in Experiment 1.

Confidence	Learning Condition
	Screencast			Manual
	M	SD	95% CI	M	SD	95% CI
Applying APA rules
Before error-correction task	1.32	1.77	[0.46, 2.17]	0.90	1.04	[0.43, 1.38]
After error-correction task	3.68	1.30	[3.06, 4.31]	1.81	1.29	[1.22, 2.40]
Using Microsoft Word
Before error-correction task	1.63	2.19	[0.58, 2.69]	1.71	1.65	[0.96, 2.46]
After error-correction task	3.89	1.45	[3.20, 4.59]	2.38	1.77	[1.57, 3.19]

Note. 95% CIs are not corrected for within-participant comparisons. APA = American Psychological Association; SD = standard deviation.

Consequently, we confirmed these observations with χ² tests of independence. We categorized students who rated their confidence as a 0 or 1 as having “extremely low confidence” and those reporting 2 or more as having “some confidence.” Before the error-correction task, comparable percentages of students in the manual (36.8%) and screencast conditions (28.6%) reported some confidence with applying APA rules, χ²(1, 40) = 0.31, p = .577, Cramer’s ν = .088. However, after the error-correction task, 94.7% of students who accessed a screencast reported some confidence compared to only 57.1% of students who referred to the manual, χ²(1, 40) = 7.52, p = .006, Cramer’s ν = .434.

The pattern observed for applying APA rules was mirrored in students’ confidence about using Microsoft Word to format a paper in APA style. Comparable percentages of students in the manual (42.1%) and screencast (47.6%) conditions initially reported some confidence in using Microsoft Word for APA formatting, χ²(1, 40) = 0.12, p = .726, Cramer’s ν = .055. By the end of the experimental session, 94.1% of students who accessed the screencast reported some confidence with Microsoft Word, compared to only 61.9% of students who referred to the manual, χ²(1, 40) = 6.17, p = .013, Cramer’s ν = .393.

In addition to evaluating changes in confidence, we examined how interesting, informative, and useful students found the manual or screencast. We also examined how likely students were to access their assigned resource again if they had to produce an APA-formatted paper. A series of independent t tests revealed that students found the screencast more interesting, informative, and useful than the manual. For a summary of results, see Table 3.

Table 3.

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Using a Screencast or the APA Manual in Experiment 1.

Attitudes	Learning Condition
	Screencast			Manual			t test
	M	SD	95% CI	M	SD	95% CI	t	p	d
Interesting	3.11	1.33	[2.46, 3.75]	2.24	1.38	[1.61, 2.86]	2.02^a	.050	0.64
Informative	4.00	1.49	[3.28, 4.72]	3.00	1.30	[2.41, 3.59]	2.26^a	.029	0.72
Useful	4.16	1.54	[3.42, 4.90]	3.19	1.50	[2.51, 3.88]	2.01^a	.052	0.64
Use for homework	4.63	1.26	[4.03, 5.24]	3.67	1.98	[2.76, 4.57]	1.86^b	.072	0.58

Note. APA = American Psychological Association.

^a df = 38. ^b df = 34.20.

Summary

Taken together, these findings suggest that students who accessed screencasts gained more knowledge of APA format, corrected more errors, developed more confidence, and recognized the value of the resource more than students who used the APA Manual. Thus, screencasts appear to be an efficient and effective way to teach students APA formatting. Nevertheless, the advantage of screencasts may apply only to aspects of APA formatting that require somewhat tricky and esoteric word-processing procedures (e.g., headers that differ across the first and second pages of the document). We conducted Experiment 2 to examine whether the results from Experiment 1 would generalize to aspects of APA formatting with fewer technological demands. Consequently, we focused on the title page of an APA-formatted paper.

Experiment 2

Method

Participants

Participants were 37 undergraduates at a comprehensive, public university in New England who were enrolled in a psychology class and received course credit for their participation. Two additional participants were tested but were excluded because they exceeded 26 years of age. Of the entire sample, 54.1% identified as female and 40.5% identified as a racial or ethnic minority. On average, participants were 20.16 years of age (SD = 2.34). A majority of participants (64.9%) indicated that they had some exposure to APA format. These students reported receiving exposure to APA format in one to seven courses (median = 1) and feeling as if they received moderate exposure to APA format within these courses (M = 3.00, SD = 1.18; scale of 0 to 6). See Table 1 for demographic characteristics of participants assigned to the manual and screencast conditions. Independent t tests and χ² tests of independence revealed no significant differences between groups and weak effect sizes, with the exception of one trend: Women were in the majority within the manual condition, but men were in the majority for the screencast condition, χ²(1, 37) = 3.25, p = .072, Cramer’s ν = .292.

Materials and Procedure

The procedure was exactly the same as in Experiment 1 except that we focused on title page elements including the title, author byline, institutional affiliation, and the author note. Multiple-choice questions (n = 5) and the error-ridden excerpt incorporated these elements. There were 21 errors, the majority of which (15 of 21) did not require specific knowledge of Microsoft Word (e.g., proper capitalization of a title). Further, the six errors that required procedural knowledge of Microsoft Word involved functions that students were likely to have mastered (e.g., indentation, centered alignment). Thus, error detection for the title page required considerably less sophisticated technical know-how than did error detection for setting up an APA-style paper (Experiment 1). We created a 10-min screencast illustrating how to produce a title page in Microsoft Word 2011 for Macintosh (Fallon, 2014b).

Results and Discussion

We used the same analytical strategies as in Experiment 1, except where otherwise noted.

APA Knowledge

Point-biserial correlations for performance before completing the error-correction task revealed that all items were reliable indicators of overall performance, .34 ≤ r ≤ .67, all ps ≤ .049. As illustrated in Figure 2, engaging in the error-correction task significantly increased APA knowledge by 33.6%, F(1, 35) = 50.20, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .589. Referring to the manual produced improvements of 23.2%, and accessing the screencast improved performance by 44.6%, F(1, 35) = 4.98, p = .032, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .124. Simple effects analysis revealed no difference between the screencast and manual conditions before the error-correction task, p = .384, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .022. Following the error-correction task, participants who viewed the screencast demonstrated slightly better performance than those who referred to the manual, p = .078, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .086. More importantly, the improvement in knowledge was substantially greater for students who accessed the screencast, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .547, than for those who used the manual, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .257.

Figure 2.

Mean number of correct multiple-choice questions before and after completing the error-correction task with the screencast or the manual in Experiment 2. Error bars reflect standard error.

Thus, watching the screencast improved student knowledge of APA format to a greater extent than referring to the APA Manual. Performance was not at floor or ceiling and the distributions were normal. Consequently, we did not follow up the mixed-model ANOVA with χ² tests of independence.

Error Correction

As in Experiment 1, two raters (the second and third authors) independently and blindly assessed printed copies of participants’ attempts to successfully correct errors (max = 21). Interrater agreement for total errors corrected was perfect. Students who accessed the screencast (M = 17.61, SD = 2.68, 95% CI [16.28, 18.94]) corrected 3.03 more errors (14.44%) than students who referred to the manual (M = 14.58, SD = 2.41, 95% CI [13.42, 15.74]), t(35) = 3.62, p = .001, d = 1.19. We replicated our findings from Experiment 1: Accessing a screencast increased the likelihood that students would successfully correct APA formatting errors in a digital environment.

Attitudes Toward Screencasts and the APA Manual

As in Experiment 1, confidence improved after completing the error-correction task, Wilks’ λ = .42, F(2, 34) = 23.32, p < .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .578, and gains were more pronounced for the screencast condition, Wilks’ λ = .73, F(2, 34) = 6.44, p = .004, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .275. Follow-up univariate ANOVAs revealed that accessing the screencast did not disproportionately boost confidence about applying APA rules, F(1, 35) = 1.97, p = .169, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .053. However, students who watched the screencast reported greater increases in confidence using Microsoft Word for APA formatting, F(1, 34) = 12.93, p = .001, $η_{p}^{2}$ = .270, than did students who referred to the APA Manual. Means and SDs are reported in Table 4. Simple effects analysis revealed that confidence using Microsoft Word significantly improved for students who watched the screencast, p < .001, but remained stagnant for students who accessed the manual, p = 1.000. Although students in the manual condition reported higher initial confidence with Microsoft Word than did students in the screencast condition, this difference was not statistically significant, p = .098.

Table 4.

Confidence	Learning Condition
	Screencast			Manual
	M	SD	95% CI	M	SD	95% CI
Applying APA rules
Before error-correction task	1.56	1.54	[0.79, 2.32]	1.58	1.26	[0.97, 2.19]
After error-correction task	3.22	0.88	[2.79, 3.66]	2.68	1.06	[2.17, 3.19]
Using Microsoft Word
Before error-correction task	2.17	1.89	[1.23, 3.10]	3.21	1.84	[2.32, 4.10]
After error-correction task	3.56	1.24	[2.94, 4.18]	3.21	1.84	[2.32, 4.10]

Note. 95% CIs are not corrected for within-participant comparisons. APA = American Psychological Association; SD = standard deviation.

Confidence about APA rules was initially low but not as close to floor levels as in Experiment 1. Further, in Experiment 2, we did not observe violations of normality or homogeneity of variance. Consequently, we did not conduct follow-up χ² analyses.

Although students found the screencast more interesting, informative, and useful than the manual, independent t tests did not reveal significant differences between groups. Further, students who used the manual claimed they were more likely to use that resource on a future homework assignment than were students who viewed the screencast. However, this difference was not statistically significant. For a summary of results, see Table 5.

Table 5.

Participants’ Attitudes Toward Using a Screencast or the APA Manual in Experiment 2.

	Learning Condition
	Screencast			Manual			t Test
	M	SD	95% CI	M	SD	95% CI	t	p	d
Interesting	3.33	1.68	[2.50, 4.17]	2.64	1.12	[2.09, 3.17]	1.50^a	.142	0.48
Informative	4.33	0.97	[3.85, 4.82]	4.00	1.70	[3.18, 4.82]	0.74^b	.467	0.24
Useful	4.33	0.77	[3.95, 4.71]	4.11	1.66	[3.30, 4.91]	0.53^c	.594	0.17
Use for homework	4.50	1.10	[3.95, 5.05]	4.84	1.64	[4.05, 5.63]	−0.74^a	.464	0.24

Note. APA = American Psychological Association; SD = standard deviation.

^a df = 35. ^b df = 28.89. ^c df = 25.62.

Summary

Experiment 2 replicated most of our findings from Experiment 1: Students who accessed screencasts gained more knowledge of APA format, corrected more errors, and developed more confidence than students who used the APA Manual. However, students in Experiment 2 perceived the manual and the screencast as comparable in value. Perhaps students perceive greater value in screencasts when the material to be learned clearly involves relatively novel procedural components. Formatting a title page in Microsoft Word likely draws on familiar procedures (e.g., centering), whereas setting up a paper in APA format requires more technological expertise (e.g., formatting headers, removing additional line spacing).

General Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to examine whether screencasts effectively and efficiently taught students some rules of APA format and helped students apply these rules in a digital context. Across two experiments, students who accessed screencasts outperformed students who referred to the APA Manual on tests of APA knowledge and error correction on a Microsoft Word document. Further, in some cases, students who watched a screencast felt more confident about their knowledge of APA format and their ability to apply such knowledge in Microsoft Word than did students who used the APA Manual. When the technological demands of the error-correction task were high, students considered the screencast more interesting, helpful, and useful than the APA Manual. Taken together, these findings suggest that screencasts can be a powerful tool for teaching students APA format.

Our findings are consistent with previous research documenting the effectiveness of screencasts as learning tools (Lloyd & Robertson, 2012; Morris & Chickwa, 2014). We extend previous findings by clearly demonstrating that screencasts serve to increase knowledge as well as the ability to apply knowledge in digital contexts. Although our application task required correcting errors rather than generating an APA-formatted paper from scratch, students still had to manipulate the digital environment to identify errors and correct them. We suspect that pairing screencasts with Franz and Spitzer’s (2006) technique of having students develop their own APA-formatted template would be a highly effective and efficient means of teaching students APA format outside the classroom.

The present findings are striking for numerous reasons. First, despite the fact that students had only 12 minutes to complete the error-correction task, knowledge significantly improved across both conditions, and especially for the screencast. Although having more time to complete the task may have reduced performance differences across conditions, it would likely not have eliminated differences (see Lloyd & Robertson, 2012). Thus, our findings support the contention that access to a text or a screencast increases declarative knowledge, but screencasts appear to produce more efficient learning.

Second, performance on the present task was not graded nor did performance directly contribute to a student’s final grade in a class. Nevertheless, students demonstrated significant learning gains when exposed to the APA Manual and disproportionate gains when accessing screencasts. Further, the effects were generally large and comparable to the gains observed in studies that embedded instruction and assessment within classes (Fallahi et al., 2006; Jorgensen & Marek, 2013; Luttrell et al., 2010). Even without attractive external motivators, screencasts appear to provide students with a targeted and focused means of developing APA formatting knowledge and procedural skill.

Third, students successfully applied knowledge presented within one operating system to a different operating system. Students watched screencasts created with Microsoft Word for Macintosh and then corrected errors using Microsoft Word for Windows. The error-correction advantage for screencasts was approximately 14% regardless of technical demand. Future research should examine whether the advantages of viewing a screencast are greater when the modeled environment matches the production environment, especially for procedures with greater technical demands.

Fourth, accessing screencasts generally improved students’ confidence in APA formatting more than referring to the APA Manual. When the technological demands were high (i.e., the general set up of an APA-formatted paper), students found the screencast more interesting, informative, and useful than the APA Manual. Students slightly favored returning to the screencast over the manual when preparing an APA-formatted paper. When technological demands were low (i.e., formatting a title page), students considered the manual and screencasts comparable in their utility. Thus, students appeared to recognize screencasts’ inherent procedural advantages over reading a text (Peterson, 2007), even though this perception was not reflected in differential performance gains across situations varying in technical demand.

Future research should examine whether screencasts are particularly helpful for at-risk learners. The multimodal and dynamic nature of screencasts simulates a teaching environment more effectively than text. Students with low confidence or self-efficacy might find the focused and conversational nature of screencasts less overwhelming or more accessible than text. Further, students with learning disabilities may especially benefit from multimodal learning opportunities. Approximately 11% of students enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher education in 2011 reported having a learning disability (U.S. Department of Education, 2016). Screencasts offer such students a low-cost alternative of accessing information that could support their learning.

Although the present findings demonstrate that screencasts help students learn APA format, it remains to be seen whether screencasts help students learn APA style or writing skills. The mechanics of writing develop with spaced, deliberate practice with or without feedback (Drabick, Weisberg, Paul, & Bubier, 2007; Fallahi et al., 2006; Gianaros, 2006; Kellogg & Raulerson, 2007). Screencasts could set the stage for such practice by imparting general hints and suggestions that underlie strong writing. However, it is unclear whether screencasts would deliver such information more effectively than text.

Further, it is not possible with the current research to completely explain why screencasts produced more effective knowledge and performance gains than accessing the APA Manual. Previous research indicates that college students who were exposed to text with supporting visual images recalled less and generated fewer correct solutions to transfer problems than did students who experienced the same images, but with narrated text (Mayer & Moreno, 1998). In addition to the active nature of the screencast, exposure to Microsoft Word, more targeted presentation of APA rules, or a combination of all factors could have produced the present results. To maximize ecological validity, we did not direct participants to use the instructional materials in any particular way. In addition, we did not track how participants used the materials. Students who accessed the APA Manual may have used less efficient information processing techniques than students exposed to the screencast. To explain why the medium of a screencast produces performance gains, future research should track how students use learning materials (e.g., Koc-Januchta, Höffler, Thoma, Prechtl, & Leutner, 2017) and should compare exposure to a screencast with a more comparable text-based condition, such as a written script of the screencast.

How much information and skill students retain after exposure to the screencast or manual remains an unanswered question. Although screencasts appear to produce an immediate advantage, the additional effort required to locate relevant information in the manual may amount to more deliberate practice and consequently better long-term retention (Brown, Roediger, & McDaniel, 2014). Nevertheless, students’ or professors’ primary goal may not be memorizing the rules of APA format. Despite the efficiency that memorization affords (Oakley, 2014), perhaps the more pragmatic, short-term goal is to access resources that reliably produce high-quality APA formatting. To achieve mastery, students would likely require multiple opportunities actively applying their knowledge (Fallahi et al., 2006). But the initial advantage students gain from screencasts may help them master APA format more efficiently.

Learning APA formatting can be daunting. Although students do clearly learn from the APA Manual, screencasts make the process more efficient and somewhat more palatable. Further, screencasts can save professors valuable class time. For maximum benefit, we encourage professors to couple screencasts with assignments where students deliberately practice and actively apply their knowledge (e.g., Franz & Spitzer, 2006).

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

Portions of this article have been presented at the Eastern Psychological Association’s annual conference.

Acknowledgment

We thank Dr. Carolyn Fallahi and Jessica Mazen for helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

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

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

American Psychological Association. (2013). APA guidelines for the undergraduate psychology major: Version 2.0. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/undergrad/%20index.aspx

Brown

P. C.

Roediger

H. L.

III McDaniel . (2014). Make it stick: The science of successful learning. Cambridge, MA: Belknap.

Camtasia [Computer software]. (2012). Retrieved from https://www.techsmith.com/video-editor.html

Drabick

D. A. G.

Weisberg

Paul

Bubier

J. L.

(2007). Keeping it short and sweet: Brief, ungraded writing assignments facilitate learning. Teaching of Psychology, 34, 172–176. doi:10/1080/00986280701498558

Ernst

Michel

(2006). Deviations from APA style in textbook sample manuscripts. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 57–59.

Fallahi

C. R.

Wood

R. M.

Austad

Fallahi

(2006). A program for improving undergraduate psychology students’ basic writing skills. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 171–175. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3303_3

Fallon

(2014a, 8). APA format tutorial—Title page [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?%20v=si4UGA223-0

Fallon

(2014b, 8). Setting up your paper in APA format [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?%20v=Q06FZkHIEfg

Franz

T. M.

Spitzer

T. M.

(2006). Different approaches to teaching the mechanics of American Psychological Association style. Journal of Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 6, 13–20.

10.

Gianaros

P. J.

(2006). A seminar on scientific writing for students, postdoctoral trainees, and junior faculty. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 120–123. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3302_8

11.

Jorgensen

T. D.

Marek

(2013). Workshops increase students’ proficiency at identifying general and APA-Style writing errors. Teaching of Psychology, 40, 294–299. doi:10.1177/0098628313501037

12.

Kellogg

R. T.

Raulerson

B. A.

III . (2007). Improving the writing skills of college students. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 237–242. doi:10.3758/BF03194058

13.

Koc-Januchta

Höffler

Thoma

G. B.

Prechtl

Leutner

(2017). Visualizers versus verbalizers: Effects of cognitive style on learning with texts and pictures—An eye-tracking study. Computers in Human Behavior, 68, 170–179. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.028

14.

Lloyd

S. A.

Robertson

C. L.

(2012). Screencast tutorials enhance student learning of statistics. Teaching of Psychology, 39, 67–71. doi:10.1177/0098628311430640

15.

Luttrell

V. R.

Bufkin

J. L.

Eastman

V. J.

Miller

(2010). Teaching scientific writing: Measuring student learning in an intensive APA skills course. Teaching of Psychology, 37, 193–195. doi:10.1080/00986283.2010.488531

16.

Mayer

R. E.

Moreno

(1998). A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 312–320.

17.

Mayer

R. E.

Moreno

(2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38, 43–52.

18.

Morris

Chickwa

(2014). Screencasts: How effective are they and how do students engage with them? Active Learning in Higher Education, 15, 25–37. doi:10.1177/1469787413514654

19.

Oakley

(2014). A mind for numbers: How to excel at math and science (even if you flunked algebra). New York, NY: Penguin.

20.

Peterson

(2007). Incorporating screencasts in online teaching. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 8, 1–4. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/

21.

Schwartz

B. M.

Landrum

R. E.

Gurung

R. A. R.

(2013). An easy guide to APA style (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Sage.

22.

Tekinarslan

(2014). Incorporating screencasts in teaching and learning of database applications in an undergraduate course at a Turkish university. International Journal of Social Sciences & Education, 4, 657–667.

23.

U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2016). Digest of Education Statistics, 2014 (2016-006), Chapter 3. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?%20id=60

24.

Van Note Chism

Weerakoon

(2012). APA, meet Google: Graduate students’ approaches to learning citation style. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 12, 27–38.