Live Versus Video-Recorded Student Presentations:  A Convergent Mixed-Methods Study of Confidence, Anxiety, and Engagement in Higher Education

Masrurotul Ajiza; Feny Arafah

doi:10.70376/jerp.v4i1.433

Authors

Masrurotul Ajiza Institut Teknologi Nasional Malang, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2726-7373
Feny Arafah Institut Teknologi Nasional Malang, Indonesia https://orcid.org/0009-0008-5641-6028

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.70376/jerp.v4i1.433

Keywords:

presentation format, video recording, self-efficacy, social presence, mixed methods, higher education

Abstract

This study used convergent mixed-methods to investigate whether live presentations and video-recorded presentations differentially affected undergraduate students' presentation confidence and anxiety and their level of engagement with presentations. A total of 35 students completed both a live and an edited video presentation; researchers used validated Likert scales to measure quantitative outcomes, which they analyzed through paired tests in JASP and thematic analysis of written reflections in NVivo. The video format produced increased task-specific confidence according to quantitative analysis, which showed a difference of 2.29, a large standardized effect size of 0.89, and a p-value below .001. The analysis revealed that no significant differences existed between the two presentation formats concerning presentation anxiety (paired t = 1.26, p = .216) or engagement (paired t = −1.36, p = .183); nonparametric analyses returned consistent results. The qualitative analysis of 35 reflections found six main themes, which included rehearsal and control, real-time interaction and feedback, technical workload, perceived fairness, affective effects, and logistics; the analysis showed that 26 participants linked rehearsal/control to increased confidence, while 24 participants showed the same link. The joint display connected the quantitative and qualitative data: the video condition provided confidence gains, which related to the students' reported chances for rehearsal and revision. At the same time, their anxiety and engagement levels changed based on their interactional and logistical circumstances. The research demonstrates how Self-Efficacy Theory applies to controlled mastery chances between recording and editing, leading to improved performance in specific tasks, while Social Presence Theory shows how people face choices between two options that affect their personal contact with others and the process of performance assessment. The practical implications require institutions to establish organized recording practice spaces, which create fairness in assessment through separate content assessment from production quality assessment. At the same time, they need to help students with technical problems to create equity in educational outcomes.

References

Atkinson, Alvina, Patrice Bell, Indhira De La Rosa, Tonya DeGeorge, Lorraine Jonassen, Vinavtee Kokil, Seungjin Lee, et al. “Student-Created Videos in Online STEM Education: A Large, Interdisciplinary, Randomized Control Study.” Discover Education 3, no. 1 (October 15, 2024): 178. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44217-024-00283-8.

Bandura, A. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Worth Publishers, 1997. https://books.google.co.id/books?id=eJ-PN9g_o-EC.

Bandura, Albert. “Self-Efficacy: Toward a Unifying Theory of Behavioral Change.” Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy 1, no. 4 (January 1, 1978): 139–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/0146-6402(78)90002-4.

Beaton, Dorcas E., Claire Bombardier, Francis Guillemin, and Marcos Bosi Ferraz. “Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures.” Spine 25, no. 24 (December 2000): 3186–91. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.

Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, no. 2 (January 21, 2006): 77–101. https://doi.org/10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

Cohen, Jacob. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2013. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203771587.

Creswell, John W., and Vicki L. Plano Clark. Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage Publication, 2017.

Doo, Min Young, and Curtis J. Bonk. “The Effects of Self‐Efficacy, Self‐Regulation and Social Presence on Learning Engagement in a Large University Class Using Flipped Learning.” Journal of Computer Assisted Learning 36, no. 6 (December 19, 2020): 997–1010. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12455.

Fetters, Michael D., Leslie A. Curry, and John W. Creswell. “Achieving Integration in Mixed Methods Designs—Principles and Practices.” Health Services Research 48, no. 6pt2 (December 23, 2013): 2134–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.12117.

Field, Andy. Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics (4th Edition). SAGE. 4th ed. Vol. 4. London: SAGE Publications, Inc., 2013.

Fuadiy, Moch. Rizal, M. Asep Fathur Rozi, Nawal Nur Arafah, Lahij Kamal, and Ahmad Sunoko. “Mapping the Digital Transformation of Education in Indonesia from 2012 to Early 2025: A Bibliometric Analysis of Scopus-Indexed Publications.” Journal of Educational Research and Practice 3, no. 2 (July 26, 2025): 276. https://doi.org/10.70376/jerp.v3i2.390.

Gabriel, Damien, Julie Devos, Sandrine Chapuis, Alexandre Comte, and Pierre-Edouard Billot. “Watching Live Performances Enhances Subjective and Physiological Emotional Responses Compared to Viewing the Same Performance on Screen.” IBRO Neuroscience Reports 19 (December 2025): 381–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ibneur.2025.08.002.

Haerawan, Haerawan, Woolnough Cale, and Uwe Barroso. “The Effectiveness of Interactive Videos in Increasing Student Engagement in Online Learning.” Journal of Computer Science Advancements 2, no. 5 (October 14, 2024): 244–58. https://doi.org/10.70177/jsca.v2i5.1322.

Hallemans, Natalie. “Using Student Created Video Presentations to Build Experiential Learning in the Oral EFL Presentation Classroom.” The Korean Association of General Education 15, no. 5 (October 31, 2021): 229–45. https://doi.org/10.46392/kjge.2021.15.5.229.

Hallemans, Natalie, and Charles Copeland. “Student Perceptions of Live Versus Recorded Presentations.” STEM Journal 26, no. 2 (May 31, 2025): 28–42. https://doi.org/10.16875/stem.2025.26.2.28.

Hallgren, Kevin A. “Computing Inter-Rater Reliability for Observational Data: An Overview and Tutorial.” Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 8, no. 1 (February 1, 2012): 23–34. https://doi.org/10.20982/tqmp.08.1.p023.

Hartono, Hartono, Januarius Mujiyanto, Sri Wuli Fitriati, Zulfa Sakhiyya, Maskanah Mohammad Lotfie, and Mega Mulianing Maharani. “English Presentation Self-Efficacy Development of Indonesian ESP Students: The Effects of Individual versus Group Presentation Tasks.” International Journal of Language Education 7, no. 3 (October 6, 2023). https://doi.org/10.26858/ijole.v7i3.34442.

Hasbiyati, Dwi Nur Hadiansyah W, M Hilmy Hidayatullah, and Fathol Qorib. “Assessing Self-Confidence Levels Among Students Engaged in Dubbing Video Activities.” Solo International Collaboration and Publication of Social Sciences and Humanities 3, no. 03 (July 20, 2025): 551–60. https://doi.org/10.61455/sicopus.v3i03.383.

Hsu, Chun-Ting, Wataru Sato, and Sakiko Yoshikawa. “Enhanced Emotional and Motor Responses to Live versus Videotaped Dynamic Facial Expressions.” Scientific Reports 10, no. 1 (October 8, 2020): 16825. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73826-2.

Iraola-Real, Ivan, Carla Vasquez, Ivan Diaz-Leon, and Alonso Iraola-Arroyo. “Self-Efficacy and Digital Anxiety and Their Influence on Virtual Educational Performance.” International Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning (IJET) 18, no. 09 (May 10, 2023): 165–79. https://doi.org/10.3991/ijet.v18i09.36183.

Jiang, Zhujun, Yicong Zhang, and Feng‐Kuang Chiang. “Meta‐analysis of the Effect of 360‐degree Videos on Students’ Learning Outcomes and Non‐cognitive Outcomes.” British Journal of Educational Technology 55, no. 6 (November 17, 2024): 2423–56. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13464.

Kreijns, Karel, Kate Xu, and Joshua Weidlich. “Social Presence: Conceptualization and Measurement.” Educational Psychology Review 34, no. 1 (March 22, 2022): 139–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09623-8.

Mccroskey, James C. An Introduction to Rhetorical Communication. 9th ed. New York: Routledge, 2015. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315663791.

Mohamed, Abdullah Adnan, Noor Raha Mohd Radzuan, Wan Jumani Fauzi, and Shamsul Harbi. “Anxiety Could Be a Good Sign: Understanding Challenges in Developing Engineering Graduates’ Technical Oral Presentation Competencies.” International Journal of Language Education and Applied Linguistics 13, no. 1 (June 30, 2023): 69–79. https://doi.org/10.15282/ijleal.v13i1.7531.

Montenegro-Rueda, Marta, Antonio Luque-de la Rosa, José Luis Sarasola Sánchez-Serrano, and José Fernández-Cerero. “Assessment in Higher Education during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review.” Sustainability 13, no. 19 (September 22, 2021): 10509. https://doi.org/10.3390/su131910509.

Morgado, Mariana, João Botelho, Vanessa Machado, José João Mendes, Olusola Adesope, and Luís Proença. “Video-Based Approaches in Health Education: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.” Scientific Reports 14, no. 1 (October 10, 2024): 23651. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-73671-7.

Nadolski, Rob J., Hans G. K. Hummel, Ellen Rusman, and Kevin Ackermans. “Rubric Formats for the Formative Assessment of Oral Presentation Skills Acquisition in Secondary Education.” Educational Technology Research and Development 69, no. 5 (October 20, 2021): 2663–82. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-021-10030-7.

Noetel, Michael, Shantell Griffith, Oscar Delaney, Taren Sanders, Philip Parker, Borja del Pozo Cruz, and Chris Lonsdale. “Video Improves Learning in Higher Education: A Systematic Review.” Review of Educational Research 91, no. 2 (April 16, 2021): 204–36. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654321990713.

Ouhrir, Siham. “Online Peeragogy: Effects of Videos Developed by Students on Peer Learning and Their Impact on Academic Results.” International Journal of Emerging Trends in Engineering Research 7, no. 11 (November 15, 2019): 576–83. https://doi.org/10.30534/ijeter/2019/287112019.

Richardson, Jennifer C., Yukiko Maeda, Jing Lv, and Secil Caskurlu. “Social Presence in Relation to Students’ Satisfaction and Learning in the Online Environment: A Meta-Analysis.” Computers in Human Behavior 71 (June 2017): 402–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.001.

Saville, Jason D., and Lori L. Foster. “Does Technology Self-Efficacy Influence the Effect of Training Presentation Mode on Training Self-Efficacy?” Computers in Human Behavior Reports 4 (August 2021): 100124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbr.2021.100124.

Schickel, Marco, Nina Minkley, and Tobias Ringeisen. “Performance during Presentations: A Question of Challenge and Threat Responses?” Contemporary Educational Psychology 73 (April 2023): 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2023.102168.

Short, John, Ederyn Williams, and Bruce Christie. The Social Psychology of Telecommunications. London: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 1976. https://archive.org/details/socialpsychology0000shor/page/n7/mode/2up.

Sökmen, Yavuz. “The Role of Self-Efficacy in the Relationship between the Learning Environment and Student Engagement.” Educational Studies 47, no. 1 (January 2, 2021): 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/03055698.2019.1665986.

Sun, Ting, Tong Wu, Florence Martin, and Carl Westine. “Effects of Multimedia-Based Education on Learning Outcomes: An Evidence Gap Map Analysis and A Second Order Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia 32, no. 1 (2025): 57–95. https://doi.org/10.70725/798356qwfmej.

Trenholm, Sven, and Fernando Marmolejo-Ramos. “When Video Improves Learning in Higher Education.” Education Sciences 14, no. 3 (March 15, 2024): 311. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci14030311.

Younus, Muhammad, Abdullah Adnan bin Mohamed, Fatimah Binti Ali, and Mohd Rashid Bin Ab Hamid. “Technical Oral Presentations (TOP) in EFL Engineering Education: A Systematic Literature Review on Workplace Communication Preparedness.” World Journal of English Language 16, no. 2 (October 21, 2025): 229. https://doi.org/10.5430/wjel.v16n2p229.