Written by Dick CarlsonIf you’re still building online learning that has bullet points and a nice little “next” button on the bottom, you should probably just hang it up and get a job greeting customers at WalMart. Because the audience is going to be bored in minutes, and won’t bother staying around to see if you’re using the “Jeopardy” game show template this time for the rote memorization section.
Here’s what they’re watching on other sites. It’s the “Mistabishi ‘Printer Jam” and it’s from RadarMusicVideos. Radar is a network of most of the best online music video directors on the world.
So — can your learning compete with that?
{ 5 comments… read them below or add one }
While I’m not excusing “bullet points” and converting written materials to PDF’s and calling that elearning… your comparison is ridiculous as well. First, I am still trying to figure out what the point of the video in your link was. Further, the research does not concur with your statement. Sometimes there is just too much flash (and I don’t mean Adobe Flash) in a lot of elearning.
JRA –
The point of my video link was to show aspiring (and current) e-learning designers the sort of input that their target learners are used to seeing on their ‘puters today. The majority of the designers that I work with, sadly, are targeting learners of a generation much younger than they are.
Years ago (back in the dark days when I started in this game) that was ok. Creating a lecture was pretty much the same, chalk technology hadn’t much changed, and the big question was three-ring or five-ring binders.
But nowadays it’s critically important that designers understand what they need to do to reach their audience. Walter Cronkite used to sit in front of a static camera and read the news from typed scripts. It worked well. Then they tried some still photos. Nice idea. Next, some kinescopes — then Betamax — then satellite…
I’d really like to see a link to your research that supports the thesis that use of engaging visuals detracts from transfer of knowledge. Or that mapping a delivery modality to a learner’s preferred consumption style is somehow counter-productive.
“Flash” of any kind — whether the use of colored chalk or animated paper-clips — doesn’t automatically add value. We could certainly agree that doing something like that is ridiculous.
I suggest you pick-up any book by Ruth Colvin Clark. I believe her analysis of existing research demonstrates principles for designing solid elearning. I’m on the road right now, but one point that I recall specifically, is that simple graphics and direct text increase learning. Too much graphic content not specifically related to the learning on hand actually decreases learning.
Further, seems to me that you are trying to make a more “enjoyable” learning experience for younger learners. In a recent presentation by Will Thalheimer that I attended – he mentioned meta research that had a very low correlation between level-1 and higher levels of evaluation. In fact, other levels correlated better than level-1 to any other level. Therefore, people don’t need to necessarily “have fun” to learn from an experience. I’m not advocating making boring learning either.
Finally, I’ll try and find the blog post, but I believe both Guy Wallace and Janet Clarey recently posted entries about multi-generational learning… indicating that the differences really are not that big. Further, that people exaggerate learning differences by generations, much like people exaggerate the importance of learning styles.
I have at least pointed you in the direction of research that suggests you video is irrelevant to learning design. What do you offer, in your suggestion that design needs to be more graphically engaging?
Be serious. What do you think this movie cost and how long do you think it took to produce it?
Whatever it was, I can pretty much guarantee it was way more than the budget of most training departments, and probably way over their budget for the next five or six years given the current economic climate and the way that training groups are now treated as the red-headed step children in a lot of corporations.
To compare this to a standard eLearning course is not even comparing apples to oranges, it’s comparing a McDonalds McFlurry to a dessert made from black truffles and served at a restaurant that has 3 Michelin stars.
Please be realistic in your comparisons.
@ak
I’m deadly serious here. Yes, the cost of this video was probably more than I paid for my last three cars. And I bet you ARE being treated poorly by your corporate masters. And it IS a really awful economic climate.
And none of that matters to your learners one tiny little bit. I really wish there was a screen that said “Please be engaged with our content even though it isn’t engaging, because we have problems” that could run at the beginning of each session. (Much like years ago, when I’d fly into a new town — sick as a dog, with no time to prep, and the workbooks hadn’t arrived — and have to teach a full day class.)
But nobody cut me any slack there, either. And my point here was that as designers we have to be aware of what our learners are expecting to see on the screen. And if we can’t always duplicate the production values, we may need to come up with other ways to get them to watch.
Take a look at http://www.WillItBlend.com and see if you find that engaging.
{ 1 trackback }