Video of presenter vs. voice over PPT

[shodge]

I can't find any data that references the effectiveness of different asynch design strategies. In particular is there data supporting the success and effectiveness of video of presenters rather than simple voice over PowerPoint? Does it really make a difference if quality content is there? Thanks in advance!

[beeneeb]

My issue with video of presenters is that you automatically "date" the presentation. So, even though you have a cutting-edge presentation, it might be dragged down by "dated" video after a while. However, it's difficult to "date" a voice over. In my opinion, I think it's better to stay away from more than just hands in a video. However, it really depends on what you're trying to accomplish with the video.

[Justin]

I would love to see old lectures from the 70's converted into a Presenter presentation. Plaid pants, bell bottoms, big hair, big lapels.... that would be awesome!

[GerryWaz]

We often recommend to our developers to eschew videos, especially of scenarios. Consider using instead just pictures and narration with AP or AE. Sometimes it can help focus learners to consider what is being said and the words, as opposed to them zoning into passive TV viewing mode. YMMV . . .

[mdodson]

Our organization does use video, but only for those courses where it is really useful. I agree that often inserting a video of a presenter can date a course (and make it ineffective if the presenter isn't that charismatic), but for some things it can be helpful.

For instance, I work at a car dealership and our technicians benefit more from seeing things happen rather than going through a course where I'm telling them how it's done. So for a technician who needs to review how the A/C system works, for example, it is helpful for them to see clips of a well-trained technician explaining the subject.

It all depends on the content of the course and the quality of the live presentation.

See my article on using video in Articulate: http://www.articulate.com/blog/case-...ort-motorcars/

[beeneeb]

Originally Posted by mdodson

Our organization does use video, but only for those courses where it is really useful. I agree that often inserting a video of a presenter can date a course (and make it ineffective if the presenter isn't that charismatic), but for some things it can be helpful.

For instance, I work at a car dealership and our technicians benefit more from seeing things happen rather than going through a course where I'm telling them how it's done. So for a technician who needs to review how the A/C system works, for example, it is helpful for them to see clips of a well-trained technician explaining the subject.

It all depends on the content of the course and the quality of the live presentation.

See my article on using video in Articulate: http://www.articulate.com/blog/case-...ort-motorcars/

Nice answer! I don't mind "action video shots". However, I don't care to watch a "presenter" try to "teach" me through video. If I wanted that, I'd go & sit in a classroom. However, if you're showing the end-user proper selling techniques, then action video shots would work fantastically.

[Barry Johansen]

Besides the issues already noted, I also avoid video for some pragmatic reasons:
--It's a lot harder to shoot and do a good job than using a series of stills & voice-overs,
--Then there's the relative hassle of importing the video,
--Hard to edit if you make a change,
--Video can really stretch the time needed to load a page.

Just my opinions!

[GerryWaz]

Hey, Barry--always appreciate the wisdom from Red Wing!

Best!