Forum Discussion
Opinion: Why "High-Energy" Videos Might Be Hurting Your Students' Retention (The Motion Trap)
We need to talk about the "TikTok-ification" of education.
In 2026, the trend is clear: "Make it faster. Make it move. Add more cuts." The assumption is that if a video is dynamic (like VEO or Kling outputs), engagement goes up, and therefore learning goes up.
But as someone deep in the EdTech trenches, I’ve looked at the cognitive science papers, and the results are worrying. We call it "The Motion Trap."
Here is why "boring" slides might actually beat "cinematic" AI video when it comes to deep learning.
1. The Science: "Transient Information Effect"
Learning isn't about staring at a screen; it's about processing information in working memory.
According to research on multimedia learning (like Mayer’s principles), full-motion video creates a "Transiency Effect." Information appears, moves, and disappears constantly.
- The learner’s brain has to spend energy just to "catch" the visual before it vanishes.
- This creates a cognitive bottleneck.
If you are teaching a complex concept (e.g., Quantum Physics or a Corporate SOP), a fast-paced AI video floods the brain. The student feels entertained ("I get the vibe"), but tomorrow, they can’t recall the specific steps.
2. The Solution: "Visual Narratives" (Why Slides Win)
This is why slide-based Visual Narratives often outperform full-motion video for retention.
- Stable Anchors: A slide stays on screen. The eye can scan the diagram while the ear listens to the explanation.
- Segmentation: It forces the content into "chunks" (One slide = One idea).
- Signaling: You can use a static arrow or highlight to say "Look here," which is harder to do in a constantly moving video.
3. The Decision Matrix: When to use Motion?
I use this simple matrix before creating any courseware. You can steal it:
A) Goal: Concept Mastery (Definitions, History, Principles)
- Use: Visual Narrative (Slides).
- Why: Students need time to absorb the structure. Motion is a distraction here.
B) Goal: Physical Procedures (How to change a tire)
- Use: Motion (but slowed down).
- Why: The movement is the lesson.
C) Goal: Corporate SOP / Compliance
- Use: Visual Narrative.
- Why: Employees need to follow steps. A continuous stream of video makes it hard to pause/review specific steps.
4 Replies
Great write-up and explanation of TIE, and I love your decision matrix - it's a great way to model solid instructional practice. I'm not sure if you've come across this blog, but I'm sure you'd really enjoy it: The Science of Learning. Basically, they pick apart all sorts of learning theories with learning science!
Anyway, this TikTok-ing of content stems from the false theory of generational learning—younger generations learn best from short bursts of images and dialogue because that's all their brains can handle. Just like the learning styles theory, generational learning ignores content specifics and the way learners can interact with it in given contexts.
Engagement increases when learners can connect and interact with the content in a way that's accessible and relevant to their needs, and it's the designer's responsibility to make this possible through a whole host of tools, including video if necessary.
*Disclaimer: I'm a bit of an ARCS and SDT fangirl here 😁
Thank you, Jen - I really appreciate this perspective, especially the reminder that engagement is not just about speed, motion, or stimulation. I’m going to spend some time with The Science of Learning as well.
What you said is very relevant to something my colleague and I have been discussing lately: many university students seem increasingly disengaged, especially in complex technical subjects. So the challenge for us is not simply “make it more exciting,” but how to make it more accessible, relevant, and cognitively manageable without losing depth.
Your ARCS/SDT angle gives me a useful lens to think about that more carefully.
Thanks for this, more people need to recognize these issues.
One of the biggest problems I have with ID as a field is that it too broadly encompasses disparate audiences across training, learning, and education, with little regard for the differences. Beyond the superficial, the goals and means are so not the same. Coming from academia deep learning resonates, well, deeply with me. The idea that at times 'boring is best' cannot be over emphasized. The growing trend to shorten, streamline, gamify, and enliven education coupled with the constant external enticement of learners to learn is extremely detrimental.
Although in the literature, few are willing to build on the concept that effective learning is neither necessarily easy or fun. It is often difficult, uncomfortable, and perhaps even painful at times. The long-term benefits of deep learning are rarely recognized in the short term. One could say that a period of 'healing' may be required before the actual gains are realized.
The fluid and ever-changing definition of learning, and what metrics are used to describe its effectiveness, also contributes to the problem. Excitement during learning, emotional satisfaction, short-term performance gains, redefined assessment strategies, and other similar metrics are commonly employed to describe the 'success' of the various tends (of which AI, generative content, and high energy media are just the latest).
Amazingly, every new trend that catches the interest of researchers always seems to result in nearly universal support and similar reports of success. And, like lemmings, everyone quickly hurls their work into the same direction. After all, who is going to argue with the data that indicate higher grades and happier students at the end of the term? No one really rushes toward the project that results in potentially lower semester grades, associated angry students, and likely lower course review scores. Not even if potentially significant long-term impacts could be shown at 2, 5, or even 10 years down the road.
Until the focus can be recentered on deep, meaningful learning we will continue to be at the mercy of whatever constitutes the latest and greatest of edutainment.
Thank you! This really resonated with me, especially your point that training, learning, and education often get treated as if they were the same thing when they clearly are not.
What my colleague and I are struggling with right now is a very practical version of this problem: university students can be quite disengaged in technically dense courses, so we’re trying to think more carefully about how to increase engagement without collapsing everything into short-form edutainment.
I also strongly agree that short-term satisfaction is much easier to measure than deep understanding. That’s exactly the tension I want to keep exploring.
