I came across this study by Mikko Haavisto and colleagues in Learning and Instruction via Larry Ferlazzo. It immediately sparked a discussion I’ve had several times before: what works best for learning—an illustrated text or a well-made video? The paper fits right into a broader question many schools are struggling with today. What is the role of videos and reading skills in children’s learning?

A classroom test of reading versus watching

The researchers worked with Finnish fifth- and sixth-graders who studied science topics (such as climate change). They learned either through illustrated texts or through videos in which the exact words were spoken aloud. The study took place in real classrooms, not in a lab. This makes the findings more relevant than much of the earlier research.

The results seem straightforward: pupils remembered more after watching the videos than after reading the texts. They also reported lower cognitive load. The benefit was strongest for children with weaker reading or decoding skills. In short, the less fluent the reader, the bigger the gain from a video.

A symptom of declining reading skills?

It may also be that videos work better today because many children read less fluently than before. The authors themselves cite the PISA results showing that today’s 15-year-olds read at the level of 14-year-olds from a decade ago. Videos can make content more accessible, but that’s also the paradox: they help because reading has become harder. That makes them useful, but it shouldn’t blind us to the underlying issue — declining reading proficiency.

The impact on learning was modest and limited mainly to remembering information rather than applying it in new contexts. And while videos didn’t disadvantage strong readers, that doesn’t mean text has become obsolete. Reading remains essential for developing language, deep understanding and long-term knowledge.

Useful, but…

One interesting detail: even though the children were allowed to use the materials during the first test, they still scored better a week later on what they had learned from videos. That suggests that videos are not only easier to process but sometimes more efficient. Why exactly remains unclear, perhaps because videos pace the learning and capture attention more consistently.

The study was carefully designed and methodologically solid. But as the authors acknowledge, there’s still much we don’t know: they didn’t measure language comprehension, and the findings are limited to science topics. The takeaway isn’t “replace all texts with videos,” but rather: “consider when videos might help, especially for children who struggle with reading.”

Or, as a colleague of mine once put it: good teaching doesn’t start with the medium, but with the goal.