So, Where does Video Work Well?

In my last post I compared one kind of video training content that I had seen with eLearning. Thinking back I started wondering … in what training situations is video really more effective?

Here are a few examples of where I have seen them used very effectively.

·   To exemplify and therefore help in learning a specific behavior. For example, to teach managers how to give negative feedback or to teach how to conduct a conversation to help someone identify their goals and aspirations.

·    To help people experience certain situations in a simulated environment. For example, before teaching why it is important to first empathize, a video can be used to show what feelings are generated when there is no empathy. A good video can immerse participants in the situation and help them feel the pain. And, this can be a great motivator for learning how not to be the one causing this pain.

·    To help teach a psychomotor skill when it is not possible or is too expensive to provide hands-on training. For example, teaching someone how to maintain a cement kiln. In this situation training can be complete only after hands-on but some amount of initial training can happen through effective use of video.

·    To create awareness of a process. For example, how to handle a customer as they drive into a petrol pump. This course that I have seen was targeted towards attendants at  a petrol pump who were being told about the entire process of handling a customer beginning with directing them to the appropriate filing station as they drive in through to handing over the receipt to them and wishing them a good day as they leave.

In all of the above situations, video was perhaps the most effective method of training and therefore the higher cost of creating such training was completely justified.

Is Video-based Learning Superior to Standard eLearning?

Today, I saw a video on an eLearning  company’s website that claimed that their video eLearning is way better and more engaging than standard slideware eLearning (said in a slightly derogatory tone). I was intrigued and wanted to know more about how they achieved this.

I looked at several samples of learning videos they had on their site. In each of them, I compared what I saw with what I think its equivalent would be in what they call standard slideware eLearning. Here’s what I saw and thought:

Video eLearning	Standard eLearning
A video of an anchor who talks through the content	Audio that talks through the content
On-screen text that the anchor points to while explaining concepts	On-screen text that draws attention to itself through use of some animation or is talked about by the audio
Stock photos, Rendered Graphics, screenshots and yes, even clipart – again pointed to by the anchor or in some cases the anchor vanishes because of lack of screen space	Similar kinds of Graphics and screenshots explained using callouts, highlights and audio

What I obviously did not find (considering it is video and not an interactive course), were interactions. Interactions are very common in standard eLearning – could be simple questions or more complex/interesting activities that the learner needs to do. If designed well, interactions can make the learning content much more engaging and therefore better to learn from.

Bottomline – I am as clueless as I was before about how the company can claim that their video learning modules are better in any way. Each of the features is present in most typical eLearning courses. And, the eLearning courses have the added advantage of interactivity.

So, I think, effectiveness comes not from a specific mode of delivery – it comes only from “good analysis and design” – which includes identifying the best mode of delivery based on the audience, and other client realities. I’m sure Video Learning is the best in certain situations – but it is the role of the Learning Consultant / Instructional Designer to decide when it is the best to use.