I have found that very useful. Sometimes I find something in the news sites and then rush to come here and post a link, only to find someone already did… saves me a post 
3 Likes
Yes indeed. There are few situations when a video is very useful conveying information. Perhaps where a combination of video footage of a real world event with explanatory commentary, or maybe an animation, graph etc with commentary to introduce an unfamiliar subject or difficult concept. Then the low information density may be an advantage not a fault. Even then it takes an expert to do it properly.
The main reason videos are employed and where they have some impact is to change attitudes and feelings. The video is favoured by entertainers, propagandists and salesmen. Moving images and sound are there to grab on to your emotions not your mind. It’s all about flooding your senses with stimulation that bypasses conscious thought to make you feel a certain way. Dramatists call it suspension of disbelief, salesmen call it a sale.
5 Likes
Among trainers, there’s a saying attributed variously to Confucius, Xun Kuang, generic Chinese, Benjamin Franklin and the usual suspects:
Tell me and I’ll probably forget;
Show me and I might remember;
Involve me and I will learn.
Text is functionally somewhere between tell and show. Video with voice is closer to show.
People differ. Some get nothing from being told. Some get nothing from text. Most will get something from video with voice. I prefer text with images myself, but sometimes video is necessary. Of course, being with your teacher and involved in the project is best.
Absolutely
Generally when they have no investment in the learning, see below.
If they are poor readers or have learned not to read for information, or have no motivation. If we were all tied down the speed that The Donald learns progress would be very slow.
Yes but too often it is too little and the reason they get something is it grabs their attention. There is only one speed the video goes, I want to go at my own speed.
The trainers’ homily that you quote works because in many cases the first job of the teacher is to capture the attention of the pupils as they don’t go there wanting to learn the given material. This applies to schools of all levels and vocational training. Mostly people are there because they must be to reach some goal, the joy of learning is rarely that goal.
As I said the video is about attitude, in many cases an educator has to attack that first so videos get better results than reading. I am focussing on the speed and efficiency of absorbing information not on a learning package that starts with selling the pupil with the idea that they actually ought to learn. I don’t think we are far apart if you look at it that way.
1 Like
There has been research in the education field that videos are relatively ineffective in communicating messages. Most individuals tune in and out when watching videos, particularly those which run for more than a few seconds/half a minute (noting that half a minute is the standard length of video based advertising which gives an indication of the attention span to absorb information). To have any effect they need to be very short, hard hitting and simple messages (think political advertising).
When I lectured at university, all lectures were videoed and there was often discussion with other academic staff about the real value of recording lectures. There however appeared to be some consensus that watching video is possibly good for refreshing content to those who attended and not good for those who missed the lecture hoping to use the video for a full catchup.
In an education environment, there is also research that the most effective method of communication is through face to face (preferable interactive between both parties), then reading (paper preferred to screens) and last of all watching a video. This could be why there is an emerging trend with some education institution to reduce the amount of screen time used in the class environment.
3 Likes
I hated TV lectures passionately, as they were called once. Too few academics are good teachers live, particularly teaching large groups, fewer are good when recorded. The chief value was to assess the scope of the course and the lecturer’s favourite topics.
2 Likes
I find video a distraction when getting information. I prefer text with images, or a podcast which is just audio. I mostly wont bother looking at linked videos. Unless they are of cats 
4 Likes
Those are gross oversimplifications, akin to the mindset that blames the disadvantaged for their plight (just-world fallacy and its less healthy manifestation, prosperity theology). A person starts with a unique set of capacities and limitations. They arrive at a point in time with unique life experiences. Those experiences are governed by circumstance and chance.
Differences are evident in this forum. The task is to take those differences into account when attempting to communicate.
Which is rarely the case in a lecture hall.
Evidence of the effectiveness of lectures is thin to non-existent. Some academics have given up on them entirely. Tom Worthington springs to mind. Though his job title includes the term “lecturer”, I can’t remember the last time he gave a lecture in person. It’s all online. Of course, his field is Information and Computer Technology.
This is Tom’s contribution to the COVID-19 effort:
Many good points were raised about why various links and cuts and pastes get inserted; the message is clear that for most, the status quo is acceptable. However, another point was made that focus and clarity are important but self management (rather than well intended rules that could have other consequences) appears to be the way for now.
This topic was intended to be a query on thoughts about reigning in increasingly long posts, but has drifted to the efficacy of various learning styles about why some links are done. Since my original query has been addressed I am closing the topic. Anyone wanting to discuss other aspects can open another topic.
Thanks all.
5 Likes
