I'm wondering if there are opinions out there in regards the efficacy of having a person on-screen as the narrator during eLearning. We're having the discussion in my office: some find it beneficial to have a person on screen speaking while others find it distracting.
If the person is only reading what's on the slide then I find it's of little value. Doesn't mean you still don't have just an audio file and allow the learner to turn it on and off, depending on their preferences. If the person if providing an overview on the content slide then I prefer the talking head, but again, allow the learner to pause and/or close the talking head.
That's a great question! Like a lot of things in e-learning, I personally think there's not a single right or wrong choice. A lot of it has to do with how the narrator is implemented and then integrated into the project.
As Richard mentioned, having a narrator read on-screen text verbatim does tend to lead to learners tuning out. Most people can read faster in their head than a narrator can read a script, so that can make the situation frustrating. As well, repeated content can in some cases lead to cognitive overload.
But that doesn't mean there aren't positive ways to include an on-screen narrator, whether it's live video or an animated/illustrated character. An on-screen narrator can act as a host or coach, leading learners through the content, answering common questions, and giving them additional context. Or they might be a character in an e-learning scenario, and their narration gives you additional insights into their decisions or thought processes.
While I'm sure there are good exceptions out there, generally speaking I most often see on-screen narrators work when the e-learning designer has used their presence strategically to enhance the learning experience. If you can pull them out of a particular course and it doesn't change the learning experience, they might not be worth including in that instance.
I think this can work, but I don't think of it as an on-screen character "narrating" the course to the learner. I think of it as the learner conversing with (i.e., working with) an on-screen character. Here are a few screen-grabs from a biosafety course I rolled out recently.
Earlier in the course, you meet the "Sharon" character who is introduced as your laboratory manager in the research lab you've just joined. She's asked you, the learner, to help her analyze the hazards of the experiment you plan to perform. She takes you over to her office whiteboard and asks you a lot of questions to prompt you to do the hazard analysis. She also gives you feedback and challenges you to consider things you might not have thought about otherwise.
First, she sets up the basic parameters of the Agent Analysis on the whiteboard:
Then, you're invited to scroll through the embedded resource to identify the proper Risk Group for each biological agent you plan to use in your experiment:
After you've identified the Risk Group for each agent, or identified that the agent is not listed, the OK button becomes available.
After you click OK (to indicate that you're done performing the Agent Analysis), Sharon begins conversing with you again:
After you respond to Sharon's question, she continues to converse with you about the project:
Then she asks you a follow-up question:
And the course continues on in this way until you've had the experience of completing a pretty thorough hazard analysis for the experiment in this scenario.
While Sharon is providing a lot of the information that might otherwise be given by a course narrator, the feeling you have while taking the course is more that Sharon is a colleague with whom you are working, which is a lot more engaging than having a course lecture to you, regardless of whether the lecturer is on-screen or not.
You can see the whole course here if you want to explore this approach more: EHS 0739 Biosafety Training for Researchers. The examples above came from the "I Work With Microorganisms" branch (there are also different branches, with different scenarios for researchers who work primarily with plants or primarily with lab animals).
3 Replies
If the person is only reading what's on the slide then I find it's of little value. Doesn't mean you still don't have just an audio file and allow the learner to turn it on and off, depending on their preferences. If the person if providing an overview on the content slide then I prefer the talking head, but again, allow the learner to pause and/or close the talking head.
Hi Lauren,
That's a great question! Like a lot of things in e-learning, I personally think there's not a single right or wrong choice. A lot of it has to do with how the narrator is implemented and then integrated into the project.
As Richard mentioned, having a narrator read on-screen text verbatim does tend to lead to learners tuning out. Most people can read faster in their head than a narrator can read a script, so that can make the situation frustrating. As well, repeated content can in some cases lead to cognitive overload.
But that doesn't mean there aren't positive ways to include an on-screen narrator, whether it's live video or an animated/illustrated character. An on-screen narrator can act as a host or coach, leading learners through the content, answering common questions, and giving them additional context. Or they might be a character in an e-learning scenario, and their narration gives you additional insights into their decisions or thought processes.
While I'm sure there are good exceptions out there, generally speaking I most often see on-screen narrators work when the e-learning designer has used their presence strategically to enhance the learning experience. If you can pull them out of a particular course and it doesn't change the learning experience, they might not be worth including in that instance.
I think this can work, but I don't think of it as an on-screen character "narrating" the course to the learner. I think of it as the learner conversing with (i.e., working with) an on-screen character. Here are a few screen-grabs from a biosafety course I rolled out recently.
Earlier in the course, you meet the "Sharon" character who is introduced as your laboratory manager in the research lab you've just joined. She's asked you, the learner, to help her analyze the hazards of the experiment you plan to perform. She takes you over to her office whiteboard and asks you a lot of questions to prompt you to do the hazard analysis. She also gives you feedback and challenges you to consider things you might not have thought about otherwise.
First, she sets up the basic parameters of the Agent Analysis on the whiteboard:
Then, you're invited to scroll through the embedded resource to identify the proper Risk Group for each biological agent you plan to use in your experiment:
After you've identified the Risk Group for each agent, or identified that the agent is not listed, the OK button becomes available.
After you click OK (to indicate that you're done performing the Agent Analysis), Sharon begins conversing with you again:
After you respond to Sharon's question, she continues to converse with you about the project:
Then she asks you a follow-up question:
And the course continues on in this way until you've had the experience of completing a pretty thorough hazard analysis for the experiment in this scenario.
While Sharon is providing a lot of the information that might otherwise be given by a course narrator, the feeling you have while taking the course is more that Sharon is a colleague with whom you are working, which is a lot more engaging than having a course lecture to you, regardless of whether the lecturer is on-screen or not.
You can see the whole course here if you want to explore this approach more: EHS 0739 Biosafety Training for Researchers. The examples above came from the "I Work With Microorganisms" branch (there are also different branches, with different scenarios for researchers who work primarily with plants or primarily with lab animals).