Slashdot Mirror
No Film At 11: the Case For the Less-Video-Is-More MOOC
theodp writes: In Why My MOOC is Not Built on Video, GWU's Lorena Barba explains why the Practical Numerical Methods with Python course she and colleagues put together has but one video: "Why didn't we have more video? The short answer is budget and time: making good-quality videos is expensive & making simple yet effective educational videos is time consuming, if not necessarily costly. #NumericalMOOC was created on-the-fly, with little budget. But here's my point: expensive, high-production-value videos are not necessary to achieve a quality learning experience." When the cost of producing an MOOC can exceed $100,000 per course, Barba suggests educators pay heed to Donald Bligh's 1971 observation that "dazzling presentations do not necessarily result in learning." So what would Barba do? "We designed the central learning experience [of #NumericalMOOC] around a set of IPython Notebooks," she explains, "and meaningful yet achievable mini-projects for students. I guarantee learning results to any student that fully engages with these!"
I applaud Ms. Lorena's determination to keep the cost of her video to the absolute minimum
While it is true that all the jingles and dazzling FX may not add to the education value, absolute minimum by itself could be too limiting as well
It is thus advisable for one to adopt the moderate approach --- and try to avoid the two extremes
Since the summary didn't bother mentioning that tiny detail.
On YouTube that is pretty good... And I guarantee you that it didn't cost a hundred grand to make... You just need a camera - and a $200 Canon works great for this - and a good presenter. Guess what: good teachers usually make good presenters, and since you are already paying them to do that, that solves that problem. If you want to get really fancy, you can even spring for an external mic to clip onto the shirt they are wearing...
Is there a video version of this post? They were very well appreciated in the past here on Slashdot.
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
I have never been able to stand more than 5 minutes of a MOOC video before telling myself 'OK, I'll find a proper textbook.'.
I usually have a basic view of the MOOC topic ; at least the textbook allows me to skim it and dig deeper on the points that I'm interested in.
Just sitting at my desk and watching a video is usually boring and requires to watch the complete segment before realising it was not what I was looking for.
The same goes for all these video tutorials : why bother making a 5-min youtube video on some software installation when a one-page text with command lines would be appropriate?
I hate videos anyway, you need sound to watch them, and except for simple animations showing 'interesting' stuff they are the slowest way to transport knowledge. Both in 'preparing/making' as in watching.
Reading a good piece is 10 times faster than watching a movie.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
You can see all kinds of youtube "tutorials" for stuff that used to be described in a few lines of text and maybe one or two screenshots. Which sucks because it takes much longer and is a problem when you have no sound.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
I have never been able to stand more than 5 minutes of a MOOC video before telling myself 'OK, I'll find a proper textbook.'.
You take the words right out of my mouth. There are many subjects that are not well suited to a video presentation; in fact, in my view there are very few subjects that benefit much from combining graphics, talk and soundtrack. Perhaps if you can't appreciate a mathematical subject as it is presented in its dry text form, then it isn't something you are likely to ever understand - the beauty lies in the insight it provides, 'wow factor' should be irrelevant.
I think one of the problems with the video format is that it entices you into being passive; when you read proof in a book, you get stuck from time to time because there are things you don't understand, so you look up the things you don't understand etc, but in a video you are carried on without understanding, and although it is easy enough to stop and rewind, you tend not to because you are passively watching a video. Also, studies have shown that people tend to remember and understand less of presentations involving graphics, text and speaking, because the three forms crowd each other out.
No you're not alone, videos everywhere are the reason I just don't touch MOOCs despite having done lots of graduate and post-graduate study in my spare time. One would think I'd be the ideal target audience for an MOOC given that I was happy doing distance learning before it became cool, but the proliferation of videos makes it impossible for me via the new hip MOOC organisations like EdX.
I just don't have time to prat around pre-loading videos onto my mobile devices, I don't have a consistent enough mobile connection whilst I'm commuting to stream video. So there's the practical fact that MOOCs just do not work for people who like to learn on their commute like me as a book or text based description would.
But that's not the only problem, what if you don't get something straight away? what if you need to go back and refer to something for an exercise? even with transcript based links getting what you want repeated in a video is a fucking nightmare compared to just re-reading the relevant page in a book, or link on a page. What if you want to copy some information for notes? kind of hard to do from a video, and snippets of a transcript are no substitute for a proper written description.
Honestly, videos are just a lazy way to cash in on the MOOC craze, I completely disagree with the summary, it's wrong. Videos are cheap and easy to make and MOOCs done using video are done precisely because it's quicker and easier to just record a class you're already doing, or spend a couple of hours explicitly recording it and chuck it up on the web. This is no substitute at all to a properly thought out and written textbook or text tutorial, and that's why textbooks (whether print or digital) will always be superior to MOOCs - they've had a lot more time, effort and thought put into them.
Then there's the accent problem, I don't care what accent people speak with, but I also don't need that distraction of figuring out what someone is saying, or simply the distraction of noticing a pronunciation of a word I've not heard before when I'm meant to be actually learning. There's also the problem of lecturers whose voice just fucking sends you to sleep.
Now, this isn't to say videos aren't helpful, or don't have a place, sometimes visual demonstrations are an important learning tool, and then yes, sure, make that a video (probably an animated gif would do the trick and be more portable a lot of the time though), but an hour long video lecture by someone with a piss boring voice, no transcript, and no simple way to jump to specific sections? What an awful, crap, and stupid learning medium - adding transcript based links are a band aid at best.
Really, the only good thing about MOOCs is that they're mostly free, and there seems to be a push to change even that.
this is the other end of the swing, the pendulum all the way to the right again. Here is what MOOCs do wrong...
One or the other. Massively imbalanced. Without the use of textbooks, students need solid examples and reading created by the course creators. With all that text they need an instructor showing them examples and explaining what can be intimidating to students in more friendly ways.
its not supposed to be aimed at autodidacts, they can teach themselves from books already. Its not supposed to be aimed at college students either, they are already in class setting with access to libraries, instructors, tutors and more.
Keep that in mind, the balance between video and text should really be the higher consideration. Give your students reading to do and reinforce that with good videos explaining what they have read. You don't need 100,000 bucks, money spent does not equal quality instructing. Pay a few real people to do the coursework with you and ask questions as you are filming your lectures, it adds a level of immersion, lets you explain things interactively instead of just lecturing, and lets you know that you are actually teaching (if you use students who are NOT taking your uni courses that is).
Professors are not actors.
Grad students are not actors.
You are not going to come off as hip or cool teaching Python or java or Algebra. What you can do is be a natural person and be entertaining and interesting still, just like in class. Unless you can't, in which case I can't help ya.
When working on some of the online courses from Udacity I really found it arduous to listen to and watch the videos they posted. The tone of voice used was also kind of annoying.
Just sitting and reading about the concepts is faster, also actually working on the problems provide more education than just listening. I feel that a lot of the harder concepts in GPU computing could have been covered with a small introduction to Monoids , Semi-groups and Groups and those concepts could be better understood in writing than in video.
In any case, I look forward to this minimalist MOOC future.
Eat sleep die
Hold your rant! Here's a sample from this course:
http://nbviewer.ipython.org/github/numerical-mooc/numerical-mooc/blob/master/lessons/03_wave/03_01_conservationLaw.ipynb
Online players that allow increasing the playback speed, or downloadable videos so I increase the playback speed myself help, but transcripts are the best for me. Of course I'm an old fart who was around before the youtube generation.
making good-quality videos is expensive & making simple yet effective
Gah. Ampersand abuse is right up there with grocers' apostrophes. Burn the witch!
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
none of this crap works, if anything it's making USA dumber.
http://thelearningcurve.pearso...
14th in the world isn't exactly a glowing endorsement.
"why bother making a 5-min youtube video on some software installation when a one-page text with command lines would be appropriate?"
Because not everyone is you? (Having said that I would recommend a target length of under 5min)
Amen.
The kids these days seem to ENJOY watching how to play their favourite games better, or do their make-up prettier, or whatever using the slowest possible delivery method.
Give me a plain-text document, top to bottom with copious examples. Give me an image for those bits that absolutely need it. Make it a still from a video if you must. And give me a 2 minute video of what you're trying to demonstrate if it really can't be put into words.
Other than that, I just don't get it.
Frankly, I had to look up MOOC online too because it wasn't in my 1938 Webster or Corey Ford's Guide To Thimking [1961, Doubleday] , the computer reference I most often consult.
[...] some people started GOOgling it,
not knowing what it was,
and they'll continue GOOging it forever
just because This is the trend that never ends,
only the name does change my friend, [...]
It means eLearning or iBrainPodPeople or LearningMOO/MUD. It also means Learn-A-TRON or Learn-O-Matic. As you see on the oldest revisions of the Wiki, it was "founded on the theory of connectivism and an open pedagogy based on networked learning." From these huble 2011 origins it has gone on to have been founded on other things too. TIL In MOOC "every letter is negotiable," which means the shortest possible variant of it is "" the null set...
No biting satire intended, as one who never attended High School I welcome the advent of the online courses that can be realized for less than $100,000, whatever the cost. Along with Benny Hill I am learning all the time.
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Reminds me of Pascal's quote of not having the time to write a shorter letter.
As a some-time presenter myself, and having the typical introverted personality (including slow speech due to all the thought processes going on to calculate the right way to say something), I have found that it takes quite a while to prepare a good presentation (non-boring and engaging, let alone one that the audience can learn something from). I would say at least 8 hours for a 40-minute presentation, but that is after some experience already. Longer gives me more time to prepare better.
I have seen quite a few tutorials and presentations where it seems the presenter hasn't spent much time planning the presentation through. First run through gets recorded and uploaded without too much editing either. To the point that I only watch a video to learn something as a last resort.
Other problem is of course in areas with buggy network connectivity, or very basic connectivity like much of the third world, video is all but impossible to use.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
How the hell is it costing $100,000 per course? Most coursera courses are just some guy talking to a webcam or a fixed camera. Most of the stanford courses(many very good) are just a guy working a camera from the back of the class with the instructor miked up. So unless the check boxes on the quizzes cost $200 each something is fishy with this number.
For a software installation only illiterates could conceivably find a video better than good written instructions.
At the bottom of the
there are million of educational videos on Youtube for free, without any $100000000 shit
oh yea Cherilyn is good
Do kids still wear this T-Shirt in college?
Most MOOC have a big problem. They don't educate a different kind of student. They educate the same highly motivated student. The only benefit is that student may not be able to afford a traditional college, or be able to read at a level required for college. It is a real benefit, but the nirvana.
Codeschool does a good job leveraging the strengths of the computer and targeting learning to those who were raised playing video games. Learning for non-traditional students involves active learning, not watching a guy on video.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
I have never been able to stand more than 5 minutes of a MOOC video before telling myself 'OK, I'll find a proper textbook.'. I usually have a basic view of the MOOC topic ; at least the textbook allows me to skim it and dig deeper on the points that I'm interested in. Just sitting at my desk and watching a video is usually boring and requires to watch the complete segment before realising it was not what I was looking for.
The same goes for all these video tutorials : why bother making a 5-min youtube video on some software installation when a one-page text with command lines would be appropriate?
Depends. I've taken quite a few via coursera, and that experience you describe, I've had it with some courses, but not others. Odersky's classes in Scala or Andrew Ng's courses in machine learning have been very nice, and I don't feel like I'm missing anything I could do with a proper text book.
OTH, I'v had other courses on the same venue that I simply could not stand.
So, it is not the medium, it is the execution.
The same applies to books in the good old brick-n-mortar world. Some textbooks take you where you want/need to. Other textbooks make you want to claw your eyes out.
Just took a Stanford MOOC on statistical learning. The best part of the course was the PDF textbook that the authors made available free of charge. The videos served to reinforce what I had already read in the textbook, and were by no means a substitute for actually reading the book. But I did appreciate them.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
Amen Brother! If I wanted to sit through a few hours of bad powerpoint every week, I wouldn't have gone into engineering.
After getting burned on a couple of online courses, I discovered the affordable and approachable Dover books on mathematics and computing. They seem to fit my attention span and learning style better, where I might have to spend a lot of time thinking about a short passage or an equation to understand what's important about it. They're also easier to read when I'm on a plane or at the gym.
Easy Online Role Playing Campaign Management
If you don't want to watch the video -for whatever reason- almost all of the courses provide the text of the close captioning. Download and read that along with any other lecture notes that are available. Better yet, just troll Amazon for the "best" book on the subject as that is all you really want anyway.
The rest of us, who actually do want the video because, have among many reasons, a) we find the pace to be more conducive to long term learing, b) we like to take notes while we listen, c) (course dependent) we like to see problems worked out with verbal explanation, d) we like to hear the occasional question from those in physical attendance or as result of those posted to message boards.
You'll buy a video, or buy a product with videos; you'll then hate the video and the product, but you'll take a hell of a lot more notice of that particular product or educational course. Dramatizing your persuasive argument--"Buy my course because fucking awesome video with explosions"--is one of the most effective ways to obtain buy-in.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I have never been able to stand more than 5 minutes of a MOOC video before telling myself 'OK, I'll find a proper textbook.'.
I usually have a basic view of the MOOC topic ; at least the textbook allows me to skim it and dig deeper on the points that I'm interested in.
Just sitting at my desk and watching a video is usually boring and requires to watch the complete segment before realising it was not what I was looking for.
The same goes for all these video tutorials : why bother making a 5-min youtube video on some software installation when a one-page text with command lines would be appropriate?
Old guy here. What I wish were videos were more high level explanations. For example, what problem does this particular thing solve? Having been through many frameworks, this is a question I ask more and more. Being able to have a subject expert answer this question and talk about how this particular product came into existence and the problem that triggered its creation can be something video is useful for. This as well as an overview of the product. (Sorry to use product, it may be a topic or any number of things).
As nicomede indirectly points out, video it far too commonly used to replace reading.
The cost of producing a large amount of well-thought out, cohesive, modular, high-visual-quality video is in the labor, not the cost of the tech. What the professor is saying is that she doesn't have the time to write 200 hours of script (or even write out 200 hours worth of detailed notes), record the 200 hours (which'll take more than that to record - no-one can do 200 hours of high-quality video on the first take), go back and edit stuff (even just cutting out uhms & ahs takes long than you think - step 1 will be to re-watch the 200 hours of video to find them :) ), etc, etc.
The $100,000 figure struck me as being weird, as well, but the professor's point is that producing 10 hours of video for each of 20 lessons in addition to all the other course materials is way, way too much to just demand that someone do.
Besides, for stuff like this you mostly want a good book anyways. Something that you can read a short paragraph of, stop and think about for a bit, come back and re-read in order to make sure that you got it, read another paragraph the same way, maybe work through a problem or two. Videos of this would be nice, but they're window-dressing around the main event.
I find the MOOC format very suitable for my needs and I have consumed dozens. The lecture is a very different format from a book and is intended for very different purposes. Like most people, I prefer lectures to begin with and move to books for further detail.
> requires to watch the complete segment before realising it was not what I was looking for.
Videos are not meant for piece meal consumption, for stuff you already know... more or less... and are of course not intended for information lookup, if that is how you have been using them. You don't attend a classroom to look for stuff. An online course is no different. You attend it when you make a full commitment to learn a topic as defined by the lecturer.
What I don't understand is: How is your problem with MOOCs any different from any Distance Education lecture delivery, Great Lectures or simply classroom format (with a large enough audience where you cannot interrupt the Prof to ask questions). You could say: just read the book for all of those as well. Do you just dislike lectures in general? Would you say that Feynman lectures are a waste of time when you could have simply read a book?
When you try to absorb information via video or audio, you're pretty much limited to the speed at which the video or audio was recorded. If you find the pace too slow, players like VLC can speed it up a bit, but I find that beyond about 1.5x the audio compression and frequency shift correction ends up distorting it enough that the speech processing centers of my brain can no longer clearly identify the words being spoken. If the pace is too fast, your only choice is pause and rewind.
When you absorb information visually, either by reading or looking at pictures, you can go as quickly or slowly as you like. It's like the audio machines I used when translating - glorified tape recorders with frequency correction based on tape playback speed, with foot pedals so you could go faster, slower, or rewind. Except you don't need any of that equipment with text or pictures.
This is why video and audio will always be an inferior method of transferring knowledge than reading and diagrams/pictures. You can use video and audio samples to demonstrate things which are best seen/heard in real-time, and live presentations are superior if they allow interaction between instructor and student. But for a general information dump, text and pictures allow the highest bandwidth, with the bandwidth controlled by the reader's mind. Video is like presenting a textbook as a flash animation with a fixed scroll speed, where you need to mess with clumsy fast-forward and rewind buttons to control bandwidth.
> Perhaps if you can't appreciate a mathematical subject as it is presented in its dry text form, then it isn't something you are likely to ever understand
I dunno. I find animations of mathematical concepts to be quite effective in communicating the intuition behind them, much better than text.
Perhaps, you just haven't seen good use of multimedia.
> I think one of the problems with the video format is that it entices you into being passive
I prefer videos over lectures. The reason is that I can pause them, replay them, for technical stuff, try things out.
You might say: Well, you can do that with a book. For me, the lecture uses a more approachable language than the more formal format of the book (good for further exploration and lookups). A video demonstration is just more compact and more effective because it is multi-modal, than the full description in text.
> because the three forms crowd each other out.
In a well-done presentation, they are complementary... multi-modal.
Harsh. Tell a student to do Linux from scratch, he will find it intimidating. I assume most failed in the first few attempts, back when they was no video option. Show him a video of it once, he will find it much less intimidating. Video has its place.
Another thing is: you need "good written instructions", as you say. Not everyone can write good instructions. But just about anyone can show. Creating install videos does not require as much skill because a lot of information is informally and implicitly encoded in the demo.
I, and I assume many others, would like some edutainment for long drives. Most of the available content is migrating to video. Audio only may be a niche but it is a big one.
The real problem is inappropriate use of media.
Video, text, pictures/photos all are appropriate, depending on what you're doing.
A picture or illustration is ideal if you need to show something visual - like a map. Doing so in words makes text verbose and inevitably, unclear. (Remember the saying a picture is worth a thousand words?). however, that doesn't mean you simply put up a gallery with no explanatory text. Pictures don't convey actions, but they help illustrate. A tutorial showing screenshots with explanatory steps between each screenshot is way more useful than a tutorial without (even ASCII art is still an illustration), or a tutorial consisting of just pictures.
Likewise, video has its place. It's use is to show people an action. Not action as in "click this button", but complex actions that cannot be shown by a mere image and explanatory text. Perhaps a part is particularly hard to remove and requires a tricky amount of manipulation - text and illustrations help, but it should ALSO be supplemented with a video showing it visually. Note: you need ALL THREE methods for this - video alone is insufficient. Text with video isn't sufficient either (you cannot follow the text and video simultaneously), and video and pictures isn't sufficient either (see text and images).
Oh, and no, videos must be properly produced with proper sound tracks and narration. And even more importantly, angles must be the same between the illustration and video. Sorry, but if the only place you can film from is upside down, then you should show your illustrations from that POV as well so users can correlate the illustration with the action. If alternative POVs are more appropriate, you must illustrate the POV shown in the video so users do not waste the entire time trying to figure out the POV.
Text is descriptive. It tells what to do.
Illustrations, photos, pictures are visual. They show things at static points in time and are useful tor pointing out, illustrating actions, or providing visual information.
Videos show action that cannot be captured by mere text nor illustrations. Perhaps a location is tricky to get to - a drawing can show you where it is, but it can't show you how to get there or what you should see. (Not without a lot of shots sequentially taken, that is). Oh, and videos must be long enough to show a lead in (how you got there), the action, and a lead out. Jumping right into the action is bad when viewers are trying to orient themselves at first. If you're showing a jumping action to reach a hidden room, you need to start from a familiar room, pause there for a couple of seconds to let viewers get bearings by showing landmarks, then proceed.
Truth is, you need all three media to teach or do anything effectively. The real problem is too much over-reliance of one medium or another - typically too much video, not enough text nor illustrations. No media is perfect - they all have their shortcomings and one cannot be substituted for another.
Text is always a must. If anything it's the backbone of the whole thing and it serves to tie the other media together to form the cohesive unit of what you're trying to communicate. You cannot use the other media without text. Next level up is illustrations, pictures, photos, and other static displays. Again, text must tie together the visual display - the visual cannot exi
For me, the lecture uses a more approachable language than the more formal format of the book (good for further exploration and lookups).
Yup, and the reason that the lecture survives to this day is because people speak more naturally and use a lot more supportive redundancy. Natural redundancy tends to be edited out of books on the erroneous grounds of being needless repetition. Natural pacing is lost too, and the text becomes too dense.
A video demonstration is just more compact and more effective because it is multi-modal, than the full description in text.
> because the three forms crowd each other out.
A video has the potential to be more effective because it is multimodal, but it also has the potential to do more harm than good, which brings us back to the thrust of the article -- doing video properly takes more time than it's worth
In a well-done presentation
Well done presentations are the exception -- don't try to build a rule on them.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Of course, this is VERY HARD WORK. Most people are lazy which is why we get the crap we do. It takes real work to put together something appropriate and it cannot be slap-dashed together in a few hours.
That's not it at all -- most people just don't know how to structure videos, and right now the orthodox line is just "stand in front of a camera and show a couple of slides, film it, and stick it on the net". Nobody's training teachers to do this stuff right -- they're just expected to do it.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
A few months ago I did the "Introduction to functional programming" MOOC on edX. At first I thought that I would hate watching videos. But what worked for me was:
After a while it became even fun and relaxing to watch the videos
Perl Programmer for hire
Ah, the kids of these days seem to ENJOY reading plain-text documents, top to bottom with copious examples.... I just don't get it ;-)
Perl Programmer for hire
Well, of course, there are good and bad lectures and lecture videos.
> Well done presentations are the exception -- don't try to build a rule on them.
I am not sure I agree. I have been satisfied with the quality of video lectures in MOOCs. I expect MOOC videos (I just use Coursera) to be better than simple lecture videos that I was accustomed to in the pre-MOOC era. M is for Massive. So I do expect that better care is taken in their production.
> which brings us back to the thrust of the article -- doing video properly takes more time than it's worth
We have an article because these lecturers are the exception (IPython Notebooks are quite good teaching tools though). If I wanted a simple presentation with no expectation of effort on media, I'd normally just go download some course lectures from iTunesU.
A good presentation does not need a whole lot of effort. A screen cast format is not bad at all. It can involve slides, live code building, refer to web resources, screen drawing etc. That's pretty multi-modal and does not need a complex set up.
Well, of course, there are good and bad lectures and lecture videos.
> Well done presentations are the exception -- don't try to build a rule on them.
I am not sure I agree. I have been satisfied with the quality of video lectures in MOOCs. I expect MOOC videos (I just use Coursera) to be better than simple lecture videos that I was accustomed to in the pre-MOOC era. M is for Massive. So I do expect that better care is taken in their production.
We're clearly coming from different places. I studied for a degree and a half with the Open University in the UK, and their production qualities were top class. The other notable thing about the OU was how little of the material was actually in video form -- typically you'd get 6 books, 4 tapes/CDs and 1 VHS tape/DVD for each course. The video was designed with very specific points in mind, and a lot of it would be interviews. Most of the core learning material was in the books.
> which brings us back to the thrust of the article -- doing video properly takes more time than it's worth
We have an article because these lecturers are the exception (IPython Notebooks are quite good teaching tools though). If I wanted a simple presentation with no expectation of effort on media, I'd normally just go download some course lectures from iTunesU.
A good presentation does not need a whole lot of effort. A screen cast format is not bad at all. It can involve slides, live code building, refer to web resources, screen drawing etc. That's pretty multi-modal and does not need a complex set up.
A good presentation needs a pretty significant amount of effort, because while multi-modal input is easy to process, multi-modal output is hard to produce.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Thanks to Dhawal Shah for a crisp and correct article. "Learning styles" was (and probably still is) a mantra of the educational psychology movement for many years, beginning in the 1990s. That movement claimed that some media were a better fit to some students than others. However, the movement very rarely mustered evidence to disprove either that (1) some media are a better fit to some instructional objectives or topics than others (for that research, see work by Barbara Tversky and others), or that (2) some media entail greater time on task, where time on task (not medium) is the single strongest predictor of learning. I'm all for your claim that a smart choice of medium (i.e., choosing media that fit the learning task) makes students smarter.
As a youngin' in the early-mid 90s, we would watch these slide shows *BEEP*
These had corresponding audio tapes, that would tell to change the slide with a *BEEP*
Can't remember what topics, and they were always boring as *BEEP*
Only useful for taking a quick nap or being amused when the teacher didn't change the slide *BEEP*
Just changing to video over slides doesn't fix the underlying lack of interactivity or entertainment to keep the students stimulated. *BEEP BEEP*
I agree wholeheartedly. I think audio works as a medium exactly because it is so limited; you only have the soundtrack, so you are forced express yourself well to sucessfully communicate the meaning. I have suffered through enough of these tele-conferences with demonstrations of software transmitted to multiple sites, to know how much it distracts, when the presenter struggles with bad technology, and on top of that had rather hoped that the demonstration would compensate for the lack of clear, verbal communication. I realise, of course, that there are things that require visual communication, but it amazing how much you can achieve with clear, verbal communication; a large proportion of presentation could be improved simply by dropping the visual part and working on explaining things in words.
I dunno. I find animations of mathematical concepts to be quite effective in communicating the intuition behind them, much better than text.
Perhaps, you just haven't seen good use of multimedia.
The article talks about videos, a small subset of multimedia, and the same can be said about animations. Good use of multimedia IMO tends to be when you insert illustrations into a mainly textual context; these illustrations can themselves be animations, video clips or soundbites. The reason this works is that you are still the one that does the work by reading the text, and the illustrations serve to support the meaning of the text; but if the whole thing was produced as a video, you would in a sense outsource the important part of studying the subject - it would essentially be a sort of reading aloud. A comfortable format, but it doesn't teach you the essential skill of doing it on your own.
I prefer videos over lectures. The reason is that I can pause them, replay them, for technical stuff, try things out.
Some thing you can try out, but there's a lot that you really can't just try out, or which you try out by sitting down with pen and paper, trying to get your head around the concepts. Especially, I have to say, in mathematics. It is all very well to use a PC to draw graphs, but how about higher dimensions? Or objects in really exotic topologies? Abstract algebra? ... and so on; there are many things that are simply unlikely to benefit from the video.format, except to get you started a bit on the way in the elementary stages.