Effective Video Instruction in Online Courses: Suggestions Grounded in Universal Design for Learning

Contributor: Ann N. Amicucci
Affiliation: University of Colorado Colorado Springs
Email: aamicucc at uccs.edu 
Published: Issue 28.2 (January 2024)


An increasing number of faculty teach college writing courses asynchronously, including those of us whose pedagogies migrated online due to the Covid-19 pandemic. For an online composition course to be effective, teachers need to communicate clearly and frequently with students and keep students engaged with what they learn (Stewart, 2019). Such open and frequent communication, along with an opportunity for students to get to know teachers as real people, can foster student engagement and students' perception of a connection with their teacher (Dockter, 2016). Further, effective online education benefits from use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) guidelines, which call for us to provide multiple options through which students can learn and access course content (CAST, 2018b; Griffin & Minter, 2013; Wijeyewardene et al., 2013).

In this webtext, I present suggestions for composing effective instructional videos for online courses because videos offer opportunities for faculty to personalize instruction and make connections with students along with the ability to draw on UDL guidelines by creating engaging multimedia learning options (Borgman & McArdle, 2019; Breuch, 2015; McClure & Mahaffey, 2021). Effective video instruction isn't solely about holding students' attention, though such engagement is highly important. Such instruction is necessary to ensure students can learn effectively in an asynchronous environment. When we create concise, clear, enthusiastic videos, we increase the likelihood that students will engage with and learn from video content in an online course.

Through the suggestions in this webtext, I argue that we can support student learning by using:

  • short videos that minimize extraneous visual and audio content;
  • minimal text on the screen—and text that is large and clear;
  • voiceovers paired with visual illustrations of concepts; and
  • enthusiasm and social cues that connect with audience members.

My suggestions are not a checklist to follow but a range of ideas you might pick and choose from, depending on your comfort level with video instruction and your teaching goals. Example videos appear in the webtext to demonstrate the suggestions I discuss. I've created simple videos to demonstrate that you can employ such guidelines without advanced video equipment or editing knowledge. Each short video has four parts: 1) an example of what not to do, 2) a discussion of why such choices are problematic, 3) a revised version of the example, and 4) a closing discussion of why the revised example is more effective.

I offer these suggestions with a note of caution. Tara Wood, Jay Dolmage, Margaret Price, and Cynthia Lewiecki-Wilson (2014) and Jay Dolmage (2015) have argued that presenting accommodations or UDL as a checklist of strategies to employ is inherently problematic. Dolmage cautioned that when we narrow UDL to a list of features teachers need to accomplish in the design of a course, the UDL guidelines run the risk of "being checklist-ified, over-simplified, hollowed out, and torn apart from the actual, tricky, ongoing negotiations of classroom practice." He advocated experimenting with UDL's principles and recognizing that course design that engages, challenges, and inspires all learners is an ever-moving target we need to always be working toward. As Wood et al. (2014) have written, "Disability's presence, like the presence of students with race, class, or gender differences, is not a 'problem' but rather an opportunity to rethink our practices in teaching writing" (p. 148). Thus, I encourage readers to engage with the suggestions discussed here not as a checklist but as an invitation to consider how we might design better video instruction to engage and teach our students—a goal that any online teacher will always necessarily be working toward.

Universal Design for Learning Overview

The central idea of Universal Design for Learning (CAST, 2018b) is that we shouldn't include accommodations reactively when a few learners need them. Instead, we should proactively design educational experiences that accommodate all learners' needs. UDL guidelines advise building choices into the learning process in three areas: how we engage students, how we present content students are learning, and how students demonstrate what they've learned. UDL places an emphasis on learner autonomy, or valuing students' having choices in their learning, and learner self-efficacy, meaning we want to encourage learners to set goals, make choices that help them reach those goals, and reflect on what they've learned. The Conference on College Composition and Communication (2013) position statement on online writing education similarly advocated for flexibility in course content and processes.

Many practitioners see UDL as a social justice stance toward education, as these guidelines focus on "reducing barriers to learning" for all students, but particularly those with learning differences or neurodivergencies that may make traditional educational materials and processes ineffective (Rogers-Shaw et al., 2018, p. 24). As Dolmage (2015) has written, the UDL guidelines' focus on multiple options in all areas is "an impetus to view students in a radically broader and more empowering way." A UDL approach "proactively valu[es] diversity" rather than making diversity an afterthought (Edyburn, 2010, p. 36).

Despite many practitioners lauding the benefits of pedagogy framed by UDL guidelines, educators have critiqued UDL for ignoring intersectional marginalization faced by learners, for striving for equality instead of equity for marginalized groups, and for perpetuating academic ableism, the implication through practices and policies that only non-disabled and neurotypical bodies and minds are welcomed in academia (Dolmage, 2017; Waitoller & Thorius, 2016). As Eric Moore has explained, when UDL is adopted with the intention of learning options being good for all learners, universities are unlikely to make changes unless they benefit a wide swath of students—a mindset that means students in marginalized groups, including those with disabilities, are left behind yet again (Nave, 2023). UDL has received additional critiques for a lack of empirical evidence demonstrating it improves student learning along with its resemblance to the long debunked pedagogical approach of learning styles (Boysen, 2021). I acknowledge the complexities inherent in these critiques along with the need for research to further investigate how UDL is implemented and the impact of that implementation on marginalized students.

Less Text, More Customization in Videos

UDL guidelines move us away from relying too much on written text in an online environment because students are better served when they can access course information through a variety of media (Rao, 2012; Tobin, 2014). Within multimodal texts, we need to allow students options to customize how they interact with instructional content, since we can't expect all students to learn well from a video and need to recognize not all users can access the aural and visual communicative modes presented in a video. Stephanie Kerschbaum (Yergeau et al., 2013) has written that we need to allow options for users "to flexibly modify those texts to customize them to their own preferences." This customization might be adjusting the size of text on the screen, choosing to read on screen or to print material to read it in hard copy, or changing a video's playback speed. Kerschbaum stressed that we need to "resist the impulse to focus on creating individualized solutions for individual disabilities." We can't predetermine how students might modify course materials and instead need to allow for a variety of modifications.

Breaking Online Learning into Small Chunks

Among the many UDL suggestions available for how to create options for students and allow students autonomy in navigating those options is the guideline to break content into learner-directed chunks. Some teachers routinely present students with video lectures of 30 minutes or longer, thinking it isn't possible to teach course concepts in a shorter period of time. Yet longer videos are unlikely to have their intended effect on student learning. Research examining how long students watch instructional videos has demonstrated that videos should be no longer than 6 minutes (Brame, 2016; Choe et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2014). Philip J. Guo, Juho Kim, and Rob Rubin (2014) studied student engagement with videos of different lengths and determined students were unlikely to watch more than 6 minutes of content regardless of a video's length. Further, student engagement in the study dropped off sharply for videos longer than 9 minutes.

Breaking content into manageable chunks doesn't mean oversimplifying a course or narrowing what students can learn. An online course created with UDL guidelines in mind will take a complex concept and break it into learning steps that engage students and allow for student agency. For example, when I present a new concept in an online course, my students might watch or listen to a 5-minute video introducing the concept, choose from among a few articles to read or listen to to understand how the concept works, think about or write in response to a set of reflection questions about what they've read, then engage in a brainstorming activity where they write, draw, or create an audio recording to apply what they've learned. By the end of this series of steps, students will have engaged deeply with the concept. These small chunks of information and the options presented in tasks allow students to work at their own pace, scaffold their learning across multiple stages, and choose what their learning looks like.

Clear Multimodal Instruction Reduces Cognitive Load

Clarity in visuals and sound is rule number one in creating effective educational videos (CAST, 2018a; Choe et al., 2019; Halbritter, 2013; Hidalgo, 2017). Unnecessary visual or aural content doesn't only affect the video's clarity, it also detracts from students' ability to learn effectively. Clear, direct instruction is necessary to reduce students' cognitive load, or the brain power necessary to process information we receive through both aural and visual channels (CAST, 2018a; Choe et al., 2019; Dockter, 2016; Hughes et al., 2019;  Stewart, 2019). Our goal is to allow students engaging with an instructional video to employ their available brain power toward learning, not toward distractions.

Cognitive processing comprises three factors: intrinsic load, the necessary mental process to learn new information; germane load, the additional mental process involved in applying that newly learned information; and extraneous load, mental work that is unnecessary and takes capacity away from intrinsic and germane load (Brame, 2016; Paas et al., 2003). For example, if I design a video to teach students how to analyze rhetorical appeals to ethos in tweets, the video requires intrinsic load to understand the concept of ethos and germane load to apply that concept to analyzing a sample tweet. If I include flashing graphics, these flashes don't contribute to students' learning but still require cognitive capacity to process and thus create extraneous load.

Ensuring Access and Clarity in Visual Content

To ensure a visually clear video, when you appear on the screen, frame yourself as the focus of the shot and record yourself in a setting with minimal objects or other items visible in the background. Wear solid, neutral colors (Choe et al., 2019). Make text and pictures on the screen large and high quality so they are viewable on even small mobile devices (Choe et al., 2019; Hidalgo, 2017). When text does appear, place the text next to what it corresponds with, so students viewing the screen won't need to look back and forth between text at the bottom of the screen and a visual elsewhere. Text should appear simultaneously with the visual it refers to rather than switching between a visual and text that refers to it (Austin, 2009; Ayres & Sweller, 2014; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Leave text "on screen long enough for even slow readers to be able to read it" (Hidalgo, 2017, Chapter 4).

Watch the two following videos for examples. You can use each video's chapters to skip to one of the video's sections: 1) a "what not to do" example, 2) a discussion of that ineffective example, 3) a revised example, and 4) a discussion of the revised example. Videos include captions, and video transcripts are linked below each video in this webtext. View the YouTube playlist to access all videos in this webtext.

Video 1: Providing Access to Visual Content in Instructional Videos (Video 1 Transcript)
Video 2: Ensuring Clarity in Visual Content in Instructional Videos (Video 2 Transcript)

Ensuring Access and Clarity in Audio Content

To ensure an aurally clear video for students listening to audio content, speak loudly, clearly, and at a brisk conversational pace. Many faculty have the tendency to slow down when speaking on video to be understood, which detracts from students' engagement (Guo et al., 2014). Ensure there is no extraneous noise in the video nor distracting sounds in your speech such as unrelated asides or long pauses. Only use music if it fits the mood and purpose of the video, and make sure music doesn't detract from the video's content or prevent spoken voices from being understood (Choe et al., 2019; Hidalgo, 2017). Watch the following video for an example.

Video 3: Ensuring Access and Clarity in Audio Content in Instructional Videos (Video 3 Transcript)

Using Visual and Audio Cues for Organization

In addition to removing distracting visual and audio content, we can use on-topic content to organize a video for learners. Bump Halbritter (2013) has advised attention to the "punctuation" of a film, making sure the start of a video signals on the screen and in audio that something is starting and that transitions present appropriate pauses and points of organization (p. 61). Keep transitions between clips clear and simple. Halbritter noted that clips need to be edited correctly so nothing important is cut off nor extraneous content left in, and Alexandra Hidalgo (2017) advised sticking to simple transitions such as "fades and dissolves" that "simply move us from one section to another." Ideally, a video will "minimize camera cuts" altogether, such as by recording talking head instruction all in one take (Choe et al., 2019, p. 18).

Further, we can use audio or visual cues to convey emphasis (Brame, 2016; Mayer & Fiorella, 2014; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). To help students process information, give signals such as voiced emphasis or visual highlights to let students know what content is important and to help them navigate content (Brame, 2016; Mayer & Fiorella, 2014; Mayer & Moreno, 2003).

Pairing Illustrations with Voiceovers

Multimedia learning theory has found that our best bet for getting someone to learn a concept in a video is to explain the concept in a voiceover while illustrating it on the screen with a picture or diagram (Austin, 2009; Ayres & Sweller, 2014; Kalyuga & Sweller, 2014; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). When learning from a video, many users process information simultaneously through the eyes and ears (Mayer, 2014a; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). In these cases, because users receive and process information through both channels before moving that information to working and then long-term memory, individuals learn best when presented with a combination of verbal explanation and corresponding visual illustration. Watch the following video for an example.

Video 4: Pairing Illustrations with Voiceovers in Instructional Videos (Video 4 Transcript)

Contrary to the common practice of presenting words on a PowerPoint presentation while speaking about those words in an in-person environment, in video instruction, most information that is presented in a voiceover should not be repeated in text on the screen (Austin, 2009; Kalyuga & Sweller, 2014; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Say I'm teaching students to analyze how emoji shape meaning in digital discourse. To minimize students' extraneous cognitive load, I could show an image of a tweet containing emoji on the screen and talk through an analysis of the emoji in a voiceover. It wouldn't be necessary for me to place all the words I'm saying on the screen to echo the words I'm speaking, since doing so adds cognitive load—although displaying key terms and concepts may benefit students. Relatedly, verbal explanation and visual illustration need to be presented simultaneously, not sequentially, or students will require extra cognitive load to switch back and forth between the two (Ayres & Sweller, 2014; Mayer & Moreno, 2003). Thus, it would be less effective for me to show myself on the screen talking through how emoji work in an example tweet, then, later, to show the image of the tweet with emoji and talk more about it. To maximize students' brain power, I'd show the image of the emoji at the same time I gave the explanation.

A visual illustration paired with a voiceover explanation works well in STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) disciplines, where a faculty member may be showing an equation, machine, or diagram while explaining how it works. In text-focused disciplines, though, pairing a voiceover explanation with a visual illustration that doesn't rely on text can be challenging. As in the previous example, if I'm teaching analysis of emoji in tweets, I'll need to show a tweet on the screen that is likely to contain text, even if such text is short. However, I can uphold these principles of multimedia learning theory by ensuring I reduce students' extraneous cognitive load as much as possible: I'll show the tweet, give students time to read or listen to it, and ensure it is large enough to be viewed on a mobile device. I'll use visual cues such as highlights or circles to point to parts of the tweet I'm discussing for students viewing the screen, and I won't switch back and forth between my image and the tweet, since such back-and-forth switching creates further extraneous cognitive load (Guo et al., 2014; Kizilcec et al., 2015).

When displaying images, make your image as large as possible, and let it fill most of the screen. When it's necessary for text to appear, use a simple, sans serif font like Arial in 60-point size or larger. To test your font size, shrink your view of the video editing screen to the size of a mobile device to check whether it is easy to read. Similarly, if you use PowerPoint slides, shrink the slide view down to 40% to see what your students will see on their phones.

A Positive Affective Experience for Students

In addition to creating clear videos that reduce extraneous cognitive load, we should aim to compose videos that provide a positive affective experience for students. By affective experience, I mean an audience member's felt experience of any text, the way a composition causes us to feel alongside thinking, to have a visceral or emotional response. When I watch or listen to a video to learn something, I want to be engaged: to not only learn but to also feel, to have my emotions and my senses drawn in alongside my thoughts. Amy D. Williams (2019) has written that "affect concerns bodies and how they perceive, respond to, resonate with, interpret, and evaluate the forces and objects they encounter" (p. 70). bonnie lenore kyburz (2019) has suggested that affect is not only important in composition studies but important enough to be a starting place, and I build off kyburz here in considering the role of affect in the videos we create for our students.

Thinking about affective experience in video composing, let alone using affect as a starting place for composing as kyburz does, goes against the norm of composing educational videos. Much born-digital material for online courses begins with content—we often determine first what concepts we need to teach and what explanations and examples we'll use to teach them—rather than beginning in the idea of our students' experiences of excitement or emotion in viewing a video. We can begin to facilitate a positive experience for students by demonstrating the value and purpose of our course videos. Cynthia J. Brame (2016) advised making videos course-specific and explaining their relevance so students understand why they're being asked to watch a video. I choose to explain this purpose and relevance in brief text prior to a video rather than using screentime to do so.

Using Enthusiasm to Connect with an Audience

Many researchers have advocated including the instructor on the screen and speaking directly to the camera for a personal connection (Choe et al., 2019; Guo et al., 2014). Guo et al. (2014) found that "a human face provided a more 'intimate and personal' feel and broke up the monotony of PowerPoint slides and code screencasts" and that a talking head helps create "the student feeling that the video is being directed right at them, rather than at an unnamed crowd," all of which makes for a more positive experience watching a video (pp. 45, 46). A talking head has been shown to produce more student engagement with videos than a recording of an instructor lecturing at the front of a classroom or a slideshow or screencast (Guo et al., 2014). Watch the following video for an example.

Video 5: Using Enthusiasm to Connect with an Audience in Instructional Videos (Video 5 Transcript)

The eye contact and hand gestures I make in my videos are neurotypical, but bodily engagement that conveys presence and enthusiasm to an audience can look a variety of ways for different instructors. We should design videos that demonstrate we are invested in connecting with our audience while showcasing and celebrating a wide range of forms of self-presentation. Eye contact and "quiet hands" are not features of many individuals' self-presentation, such as neurodiverse individuals who experience discomfort if not outright pain when performing eye contact or who stim to manage sensory load (Bailin, 2019; Rivera, 2021, 2022; Schaber, 2014). As a reviewer of this webtext noted, displaying humanness through tics or other neurodiverse forms of self-presentation helps audience members connect with them in their videos. A diverse range of self-presentations helps students understand who we are as individuals and recognize that their own range of self-presentation forms is welcome in our courses.

Using Social Cues to Connect with an Audience

Jason Dockter (2016) stressed that creating a connection with students doesn't occur as easily we'd assume simply by showing your image and being conversational in videos. He found that while instructors may take multiple steps to make ourselves seem personable, videos can in fact harm the social connection students feel with their teacher because videos can't feel spontaneous and don't offer opportunities for dialogue. Dockter argued that we can counteract this inability to be spontaneous by allowing our professional façade to fall away, since having some "slip-ups" in content helps students perceive us as human (p. 83).

Including social cues in videos causes a social response in audience members, which can help enhance students' affective experience along with their learning (Mayer, 2014b). We can create social cues by speaking in the first and second person and including "sentences in which the instructor makes direct self-revealing comments to the learner" (p. 348). For example, rather than saying, "When someone uses TikTok, they encounter videos with voiceovers or music," I might say, "When you go on TikTok, you encounter videos with voiceovers or music, though I'll often skip past several videos without stopping on them." Including personal glimpses into our thinking and our lives can allow us to connect with students without creating extraneous cognitive load by introducing distracting information. Watch the following video for an example.

Video 6: Using Social Cues to Connect with an Audience in Instructional Videos (Video 6 Transcript)

A Contradiction Between Connection and Clarity

You'll notice a contradiction in multimedia education scholarship: It's not possible to have the instructor on the screen for a personal connection and also use a combination of visual illustration and voiceover without any distracting switches between the two. This contradiction may mean we sometimes choose to include just a bit of distraction to switch between content in a video—or that we have some videos that show the instructor and others that don't. Some instructors default to including both; many faculty keep a talking head image visible in the corner of a screen while illustrating a concept, but this choice can backfire. Alendra Lyons, Stephen Reysen, and Lindsey Pierce (2012) found that for students with lower levels of comfort with technology, having a teacher image appear on a slide that has a voiceover detracts from learning—because the addition of a teacher image and the social cues it affords are a distraction for students in this camp. In contrast, more tech-savvy students benefit from and aren't distracted by the addition of a teacher image and additional social cues.

We can't assume that students in online courses are comfortable with technology, since many enroll in online courses because work or family obligations make a face-to-face course impossible to access or because an online course is all that is available. Thus Lyons et al.'s (2012) study presents a particular challenge in the design of educational videos: If we choose to include more social cues, such as through a talking head in the corner of an illustration, we might foster a more positive affective experience for our tech-savvy students but create a distraction and extraneous cognitive load, and perhaps decrease learning ability, for our less-tech savvy students.

Where to Start?

I recognize that the number of suggestions in this webtext might be overwhelming. What is more, if you teach a 4/4 or 5/5 load, have multiple course preparations each term, hold a contingent faculty position, or teach across multiple institutions and curricula, it may seem nearly impossible to consider implementing these suggestions. Most faculty, myself included, are unlikely to be able to implement all these suggestions in every class we teach—and certainly not the first time we teach it. Consider trying a tip from the following list, depending on your time available.

Tips for Teachers with Little Time

  • Provide a text and audio/video option. When introducing a concept, offer a written and a video or audio explanation (Tobin, 2014). Start by writing a concise text students can read in 5 minutes to explain the concept; then use that text as a rough script to create a short audio recording or unedited video containing similar information. Writing a concise explanation for a concept you know well and recording an unedited audio or video may take 12 hours.
  • Provide a list of learning options. Share a list of options available to all your students, such as reading texts visually or using a screen reader to listen to texts; seeking audio or video resources instead of solely print resources for research projects; and using text-to-speech to compose ideas for writing projects. Suggested free screen readers: NVDA for Windows, Voiceover for Mac, and ChromeVox, which is built into Chromebooks. Composing a list of options available to all students may take 12 hours.

Tips for Teachers with Some Time

  • Invite conversation about accommodations. When you receive a disability accommodation letter, ask for a brief meeting, email exchange, or text chat to discuss students' educational experiences and the learning options available in your course (Dolmage et al., 2020). Students may not yet have experience considering how to implement accommodations or which versions of accommodations work well for them. Reaching out to students and holding check-in conversations may take 34 hours or more.
  • Build your comfort level on camera. Stage a setting for an instructional video by choosing what to wear, where to sit, what to have in the background, and how to set up audio, lighting, and recording equipment. Start recording on your phone or another device and experiment with your on-camera presence. Try telling a story, talking as if you're having a conversation, or pretending you're leading an in-person class. Be willing to laugh at yourself! Setting up a recording scenario and experimenting with your on-camera presence may take 34 hours.

Tips for Teachers with Ample Time

  • Build a video library for one course. Choose a course you teach consistently and concepts you teach often within it. Create and edit a series of short instructional videos using examples that will be relevant for multiple iterations of the course. Recording and editing multiple videos may take 3040 hours.
  • Attend a conference. Many composition conferences offer opportunities to develop online teaching abilities, including Computers and Writing, the Conference on College Composition and Communication, and the National Council of Teachers of English conference. Alternately, explore conferences outside of education that focus on effective multimodal composing. I have found great value in attending Adobe Creative Campus events virtually and AdobeMAX in person, where I have learned methods for video recording, editing, and captioning. Participating in a professional conference may take 45 full days.

Tech Tools to Try

Whether you're new to video instruction or looking to refine a long practice, consider trying one or more of the following tools.

Tools for Recording 

  • Use your smartphone, tablet, or webcam to record videos.
  • A lapel mic or table-top mic works well for capturing audio when you're sitting at a distance from your device.
  • A ring light or lamp positioned facing you helps create a well lit video.
  • Explore recording software available at your institution, such as Panopto, which is available within some learning management systems, or use recording features within video conferencing software such as Zoom or Microsoft Teams.
  • Explore equipment available for loan at your institution's library, such as video cameras, lighting, and audio equipment.
  • Seek out spaces designed for recording, such as in your institution's library, Writing Center, media department, or at a public library.
  • Use a digital teleprompter like CuePrompter to have your script scroll on your computer or mobile device.

Tools for Editing 

  • TikTok is free and offers multiple editing options, including green screen capability.
  • Use free video editing software on your computer, such as Microsoft Clipchamp or iMovie.
  • Adobe Premiere Rush, which I used for videos in this webtext, is available in the Adobe Creative Cloud suite and easy to learn. Look into your institution's rate for an annual subscription and request that your department support this cost.

Tools for Captioning and Transcribing

  • TikTok and YouTube provide automatic captioning with the option to edit captions.
  • To draft a transcript, open a Word document, turn on the Dictate feature, and play your video while having Word transcribe your voice. Review the transcript to edit language, then add subheadings using Styles so users with a screen reader can navigate the document more easily.

Tools for Publishing

  • I upload my content as unlisted videos on YouTube so students can access them but they aren't publicly visible. Compile related videos in a playlist so students can easily revisit content on a particular topic.
  • Consider housing videos on a social media site your students frequent, such as TikTok or Instagram. Keep videos public so users without an account can view them.
  • Publishing within your Learning Management System may provide access to data on student usage; Panopto allows instructors to view which students have viewed videos and for how long. I choose to publish via YouTube for the express purpose of not monitoring student engagement with learning materials in this way.


When I began learning how to teach online, I was dismayed that little to no training resources existed for effective methods for video instruction, a missing piece in my online teaching education that led to this project. Certainly, the suggestions I share here highlight that there's more work to be done. Not only do we need to more deeply investigate UDL, but we are also in need of research to describe what video instruction looks like in our field and to demonstrate what types of video instruction are effective in online writing education.

As you move forward with video instruction of your own, remember that you don't have to be perfect! Don't hesitate to experiment with visual and audio media even when your attempts produce less-than-polished results. Online students will appreciate the opportunity to get to know you through video, and practice with video creation and editing, like practice with any type of instruction, will make this type of teaching feel more comfortable over time. Aim for clarity and enthusiasm in your videos, and offer learning options to students when you can—since these small steps contribute to an effective learning experience.


Austin, Katherine A. (2009). Multimedia learning: Cognitive individual differences and display design techniques predict transfer learning with multimedia learning modules. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1339–1354. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.06.017

Ayres, Paul, & Sweller, John. (2014). The split-attention principle in multimedia learning. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 206–226). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369.011

Bailin, Aiyana. (2019, June 6). Clearing up some misconceptions about neurodiversity. Scientific American Observations. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/clearing-up-some-misconceptions-about-neurodiversity/

Borgman, Jessie, & McArdle, Casey. (2019). Personal, accessible, responsive, strategic: Resources and strategies for online writing instructors. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PRA-B.2019.0322

Boysen, Guy A. (2021). Lessons (not) learned: The troubling similarities between learning styles and Universal Design for Learning. Scholarship of Teaching and Learning in Psychology. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/stl0000280

Brame, Cynthia J. (2016). Effective educational videos: Principles and guidelines for maximizing student learning from video content. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 15(4), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.16-03-0125

Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. (2015). Faculty preparation for OWI. In Beth L. Hewett & Kevin Eric DePew (Eds.), Foundational practices of online writing instruction (pp. 355–393). The WAC Clearinghouse; Parlor Press. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2015.0650.2.11

CAST. (2018a). Minimize threats and distractionshttps://udlguidelines.cast.org/engagement/recruiting-interest/threats-distractions

CAST (2018b). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org/

Choe, Ronny C., Scuric, Zorica, Eshkol, Ethan, Cruser, Sean, Arndt, Ava, Cox, Robert, Toma, Shannon P., Shapiro, Casey, Levis-Fitzgerald, Marc, Barnes, Greg, & Crosbie, Rachelle H. (2019). Student satisfaction and learning outcomes in asynchronous online lecture videos. CBE—Life Sciences Education, 18(4), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-08-0171

Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2013, March). A position statement of principles and example effective practices for online writing instruction (OWI)https://cdn.ncte.org/nctefiles/groups/cccc/owiprinciples.pdf 

Dockter, Jason. (2016). The problem of teaching presence in transactional theories of distance education. Computers and Composition, 40, 73–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2016.03.009 

Dolmage, Jay. (2015). Universal design: Places to start. Disability Studies Quarterly, 35(2). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v35i2.4632

Dolmage, Jay Timothy. (2017). Academic ableism: Disability and higher education. University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9708722

Dolmage, Jay, Helquist, Melissa, & Wood, Tara. (2020). Connecting writing programs and faculty with disability services. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 24(2). https://praxis.technorhetoric.net/tiki-index.php?page=PraxisWiki:_:disability_praxis

Edyburn, Dave L. (2010). Would you recognize Universal Design for Learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL. Learning Disability Quarterly, 33(1), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/07319487100330010 

Griffin, June, & Minter, Deborah. (2013). The rise of the online writing classroom: Reflecting on the material conditions of college composition teaching. College Composition and Communication, 65(1), 140–161.

Guo, Philip J., Kim, Juho, & Rubin, Rob. (2014). How video production affects student engagement: An empirical study of MOOC videos. In Mehran Sahami, Armando Fox, Marti A. Hearst, & Michelene T. H. Chi (Eds.), L@S '14: Proceedings of the First ACM Conference on Learning @ Scale Conference (pp. 41–50). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556325.2566239 

Halbritter, Bump. (2013). Mics, cameras, symbolic action: Audio-visual rhetoric for writing teachers. Parlor Press.

Hidalgo, Alexandra. (2017). Cámara retórica: A feminist filmmaking methodology for rhetoric and composition. Computers and Composition Digital Press; Utah State University Press. https://ccdigitalpress.org/camara

Hughes, Christopher, Costley, Jamie, & Lange, Christopher. (2019). The effects of multimedia video lectures on extraneous load. Distance Education, 40(1), 54–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/01587919.2018.1553559

Kalyuga, Slava, & Sweller, John. (2014). The redundancy principle in multimedia learning. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed.) (pp. 247–262). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369

Kizilcec, René F., Bailenson, Jeremy N., & Gomez, Charles J. (2015). The instructor's face in video instruction: Evidence from two large-scale field studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 724–739. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000013

kyburz, bonnie lenore. (2019). Cruel auteurism: Affective digital mediations toward film-composition. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/WRI-B.2019.0025 

Lyons, Alendra, Reysen, Stephen, & Pierce, Lindsey. (2012). Video lecture format, student technological efficacy, and social presence in online courses. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 181–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.025

Mayer, Richard E. (2014a). Cognitive theory of multimedia learning. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 43–71). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369

Mayer, Richard E. (2014b). Principles based on social cues in multimedia learning: Personalization, voice, image, and embodiment principles. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 345–368). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369

Mayer, Richard E., & Fiorella, Logan. (2014). Principles for reducing extraneous processing in multimedia learning: Coherence, signaling, redundancy, spatial contiguity, and temporal contiguity principles. In Richard E. Mayer (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of multimedia learning (2nd ed., pp. 279–315). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139547369

Mayer, Richard E., & Moreno, Roxana. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43–52. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_6

McClure, Christine I., & Mahaffey, Cat. (2021). Finding the sweet spot: Strategic course design using videos. In Jessie Borgman & Casey McArdle (Eds.), PARS in practice: More resources and strategies for online writing instructors (pp. 101–117). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PRA-B.2021.1145.2.06

Nave, Lillian (Host). (2023, January 17). UDL critiques with Eric Moore [Audio podcast episode]. In Think UDL. https://thinkudl.org/episodes/udl-critiques-with-eric-moore

Paas, Fred, Renkl, Alexander, & Sweller, John. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3801_1

Rao, Kavita. (2012, January 3–5). Universal design for online courses: Addressing the needs of nontraditional learners [Conference presentation]. IEEE International Conference on Technology Enhanced Education, Kerala, India. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTEE.2012.6208664

Rivera, Lyric. (2021, March 24). Autistic happy flappy hands & talking with my hands—Autism & hand movements. Neurodivergent Rebel. https://neurodivergentrebel.com/2021/03/24/autistic-happy-flappy-hands-talking-with-my-hands/

Rivera, Lyric. (2022, August 17). Autistic and neurodivergent stimming, fidgeting, and sensory seeking. Neurodivergent Rebel. https://neurodivergentrebel.com/2022/08/17/autistic-and-neurodivergent-stimming-fidgeting-and-sensory-seeking/

Rogers-Shaw, Carol, Carr-Chellman, Davin J., & Choi, Jinhee. (2018). Universal Design for Learning: Guidelines for accessible online instruction. Adult Learning, 29(1), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1045159517735530

Schaber, Amythest. (2014, November 20). Ask an autistic #21—What about eye contact? [Video file]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXM9Mj5Zd7I

Stewart, Mary K. (2019). The community of inquiry survey: An assessment instrument for online writing courses. Computers and Composition, 52, 37–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2019.01.001

Tobin, Thomas J. (2014). Increase online student retention with Universal Design for Learning. The Quarterly Review of Distance Education, 15(3), 13–24.

Waitoller, Federico R., & Thorius, Kathleen A. King. (2016). Cross-pollinating culturally sustaining pedagogy and Universal Design for Learning: Toward an inclusive pedagogy that accounts for dis/ability. Harvard Educational Review, 86(3), 366–389. https://doi.org/10.17763/1943-5045-86.3.366

Wijeyewardene, Ingrid, Patterson, Helen, & Collins, Martin. (2013). Against the odds: Teaching writing in an online environment. Journal of Academic Language & Learning, 7(2), A20–A34. https://hdl.handle.net/1959.11/13849

Williams, Amy D. (2019). "I can't do cartwheels, so I write": Students' writing affect. Composition Studies, 47(2), 68–87.

Wood, Tara, Dolmage, Jay, Price, Margaret, & Lewiecki-Wilson, Cynthia. (2014). Moving beyond Disability 2.0 in composition studies. Composition Studies, 42(2), 147–150.

Yergeau, M. Remi, Brewer, Elizabeth, Kerschbaum, Stephanie, Oswal, Sushil K., Price, Margaret, Selfe, Cynthia L., Salvo, Michael J., & Howes, Franny. (2013). Multimodality in motion: Disability and kairotic spaces. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 18(1). https://kairos.technorhetoric.net/18.1/coverweb/yergeau-et-al/index.html


I am deeply grateful to reviewers Janine Butler, Jason Tham, Cana Itchuaqiyaq, and Crystal VanKooten for their comprehensive, invaluable feedback on this piece. I am especially grateful to Cana for suggesting I investigate how TikTok allows users to accomplish much of what I call for in video instruction easily and for free. Though I have not incorporated examples from TikTok in this webtext, I anticipate doing so in my future teaching and scholarship thanks to Cana's guidance.


Created by kristi. Last Modification: Tuesday January 9, 2024 13:10:08 GMT-0000 by mfaris.