The effects of video modeling containing different exemplar types on procedural integrity

The authors filmed two short training videos for staff. One clip showed only the right way to run a task. The other clip showed the right way plus common mistakes.

They assigned 24 college aides to watch one version. Then each aide tried the task with a child. The team scored how many steps each adult got right.

Both videos helped, but the "right-plus-wrong" version won. Aides who saw mistakes scored 96 % correct. Aides who saw only perfect demos scored 88 %.

The edge held four weeks later. Staff rated the "mistake" video as more useful.

Al-Nasser et al. (2019) also lifted staff fidelity with self-instruction. They used picture packets instead of video, but the same idea: give clear visuals and staff teach themselves.

Ausenhus et al. (2019) and Zhu et al. (2020) show live Zoom feedback works fast. Those studies needed a coach on the line. Bartle’s group proves you can hit high scores without a live person—just add nonexemplars to the tape.

Joslyn et al. (2020) found kids still learned when teachers messed up. That paper says some error is okay. Bartle flips the lens: show the errors on purpose and staff perform even better.

You can film once and train many sites. Drop the "perfect-only" clips. Instead, splice in two or three brief bloopers—wrong prompt, missed praise, timing slip. Staff watch, see the gap, and copy the correct form. No extra meetings, no live coach, just higher integrity next Monday.