I spent all of yesterday on the “aorta” level of the Seattle Public Library, those crimson hallways being the site of our local ASTD chapter’s Future of Training event. It was a fun and lively exchange of knowledge and experience with a cohort of mostly corporate trainers. The format followed the organic barcamp model, with sessions suggested and posted (somewhat) on the fly and locations shifting according to the level of interest expressed.
As a frequent online presenter and facilitator, I was interested in a session on Web conferencing with live video. I have imagined that seeing the instructor’s expressions and gestures would fill in the missing link that keeps online training from being the full equivalent of in-person training. The live motion would counterbalance the static nature of the information on the slides. Now I know it’s not that easy or automatic.
The presenter showed us a recording of bad video—what not to do—before showing us the “good” video. I was hard-pressed to tell the difference. This is what I saw:
- the lighting was terrible, casting deep shadows on the speaker’s face
- the camera angle was singular, static, and poorly chosen
- the speaker was not animated and not engaged with the camera (aka the audience)
- the colors of clothing and background were drab
With all this visual turnoff, you’d think I’d be looking at the slide content instead. But no—I couldn’t take my eyes off the speaker’s face, unless she swiveled her chair or crossed her legs, which drew my eyes there. Motion in an otherwise inert environment is totally seductive, even if it is deadly dull motion.
I realized that, in order to add video effectively, you have to acquire the skills of a TV producer. Set up professional lighting and manipulate multiple cameras with pre-programmed zooms (an approach pioneered by Desi Arnaz for early television). Stage the background and the apparel (and makeup?) and find a SME who’s also trained to work in front of the camera. Then you might have something worthy of taxing the bandwidth of your audience.
I have enough challenges working in the present Web conference setting that I think I’ll wait for this piece of the future of training to evolve a bit more. But hey, feel free to disagree with me! I just stumbled on Oovoo, which makes me think that maybe video communication does have a future. Anybody oovooing?
Hi Betha, Very interesting to see your article as I write for ooVooworld, the unofficial WOM world for ooVoo, and I’ve been talking with a number of people in the e-learning field (Jane Hart, Tom Kuhlman, Michele Martin) who think ooVoo may well have be of great use here.
I think ooVoo’s good quality finally makes this a viable option, as does the 6-person conferencing ability which is much more flexible than the standard 2 for a free download.
I see that its status as a free application, available to anyone with internet and a webcam, makes all the difference – unlike expensive systems used in big companies, it is finally viable for the average person or small company or school to use it with ease.
Video conferencing will always have technical issues surrounding it, but I think people are getting used to using this in their home lives too and producing a clear well-lit image is becoming second nature.
As you say, I’d love to hear what your readers and colleagues think about this!
A webcam transmits an image of a talking head. Does that add anything to the presentation? I’ve attended online web conferences where the presenters participate by voice only. It works for me, but then I love public radio talk, too.
My inner skeptic wonders if ooVoo (I think I spelled it right this time) is just the new millennium equivalent of the failed AT&T Picturephone.
However, I did read Molly’s ooVooWorld posts with an open mind. I can certainly see that video chat would enhance language instruction. I’m interested to see how the usage develops. Successful new technologies often expand into niches not anticipated by the inventors.
At the moment, though, I’m with Thomas –I love public talk radio. I don’t need/want to see a face. I was a devoted listener of Ray Suarez when he hosted a talk show on NPR. On the TV, I find him much less compelling.
I adore public talk radio – being in the UK I am a devoted Radio 4 fan (despite being quite young!)
I don’t think it’s a case of this kind of technology necessarily ‘replacing’ anything like this, which works perfectly in its medium and has an atmosphere all of its own – but I still think things like online presentations, language instruction etc still do not work brilliantly and have yet to find their ideal technology medium – which free video conferencing may well provide.
Radio is quite passive – I’ve never ‘followed’ anything instructional from it and find ‘spoken demonstrations’ pretty awkward. But this is great. I think ooVoo can be of use when things become more interactive, and as people get ‘used’ to using this kind of app, initial awkwardness will fade. Email once felt clunky and odd..!
Have you tried out Mebeam ?
http://www.mebeam.com
Radio is informative if not directly instructional. I agree that it’s not at all interactive, which is often key to effective learning.
Do you remember when email was spelled “e-mail”? My prediction is that when “e-learning” drops the hyphen, that will be the indication that it is widely adopted and integral to education.
I just looked at MeBeam –very interesting. Same idea as ooVoo, but somehow I got a better idea of how potent this can be. Live video chat rooms that you can add to MySpace with a click of a button. Yes, I think this will catch on in terms of social networking. As an effective instructional tool, the jury’s still out.
What a great opportunity! Unfortunately Monday is not convenient for me this time but I hope you and Oovoo do this again sometime.
I will be chatting with Jaffe on Sunday, hopefully though.