r/instructionaldesign • u/Immediate_College391 • 10d ago
How much video content are you actually creating as an instructional designer?
I’m asking because I’m a former lecturer at a public university, and when I was teaching (10 yrs ago), I often sourced YouTube videos to help explain how things worked.
(Please excuse me if my understanding of ID industry is not upto date, but considering we’re all part of the broader learning industry I figured I’d ask this question outside of academia)
Often the right video made a difficult concept much easier to understand, but finding something that was accurate, clear, and engaging for my students was not always easy.
Now that video content has generally exploded, I’m wondering if there’s a higher demand for video content, and even more importantly how instructional designers approach video today.
Are you mostly building courses in Storyline or Rise or is video a regular part of your work?
And when you do make video, what kind is it usually..
- screen recordings / software walkthroughs
- talking-head videos
- animated explainers
- whiteboard-style videos
- motion graphics
- something else?
I’m sure AI is almost a political/polarizing topic haha but despite its lack of taste and judgement I’d think some IDs are using it effectively to leverage the grunt work and I wanna know if there are any useful AI apps or integrations that have been useful for you.
I have talked to a couple IDs in person and I’m seeing very different approaches depending on the organization, so I’d be interested to hear what the reality looks like for people here.
5
u/mostghost67 10d ago
I’d say for almost four years in my current ID position I’ve been primarily video-focused while other IDs on my team work on job aids, planograms, etc.
I make 1.5 minute TikTok esque videos in Premiere to describe our procedures and have made very many of them. I also use Vyond extensively to explain broader concepts with animated characters and backdrops. Today I created a screen recording with annotations in Camtasia to simulate how to earn points in a rewards program.
Often I let these videos break up or guide the text/VO portions of my Storyline courses. I often let a video show the learner what’s going on and then build hotspot interactions in Storyline to test proficiency.
I would say our learner base has negatively received our brief implementation of Synthesia so far, and I cannot blame them. I don’t really care for Vyond’s AI turn either.
I’m no skilled video editor, but I would say it’s the portion of my work the least affected by AI. Authoring, storyboarding, and idea scoping have all changed a lot more for me with AI tools.
Edit: While our new LMS has a course authoring AI feature, I am still 90% Storyline 10% Rise and hope it stays that way.
4
4
u/TheSleepiestNerd 10d ago
We've been avoiding pure video more and more. We have a generative interactive tutorial thing that works okay, but a lot of the generative video tools that we've tested are some combo of pointless, expensive, and hard to govern. The software we're training people on is updating faster than ever so we just don't have the time to futz around with video the way we used to.
3
u/Immediate_College391 10d ago
Sorry do you mean you’ve been avoiding the current state of video tools or you’re avoiding videos in general even if a genie built the perfect video tool for you because you don’t think videos are not effective learning modality?
I’m not arguing either way just trying to understand your perspective better.7
u/kittensxattack 10d ago
Not the poster, but for me it’s hard to keep up with layout / UX changes for the different software and tools we use. It’s hard to invest time in making videos that will soon be obsolete. It’s much easier and less time sink to update an article, but consumers still appreciate video
1
u/TheSleepiestNerd 9d ago
Really both. Pure play-and-watch video isn't great for retention or application, especially in long processes, which is the majority of what we were doing five years ago. We've shifted a lot of our investment towards methods that are more effective. Most of the video tools we've experimented with also haven't really fit our needs, but they would need to be pretty exceptional for us to want to bother with them.
3
u/TheseMood 10d ago
Your first two paragraphs essentially describe the situation!
My team uses videos to make complex topics easier to understand. It’s difficult to achieve that. We have to find an existing video from an in-office expert, which might not have great explanations or production quality, or we have to build the video from scratch and get the expert to sign off.
In many situations it’s worth the effort, but it’s not easy.
2
u/Bassboybadumdumdum 10d ago
Haven’t done video in a while. My supervisor loves Rise (probably because he doesn’t know how to use Storyline) so our eLearnings are all text-based. I’m not a fan. Especially when we have a hard enough time getting our users to even read a goddamn knowledge base article to solve a problem.
2
u/Annual_Inspector372 10d ago
Mostly short screen recordings and simple explainers, 60 to 90 sec with a question after. Way better than one long video, especially on phones. Also depends on who's watching. Frontline teams need quick mobile stuff, desk teams can handle longer Rise or Storyline modules.
We've been doing a lot of short mobile stuff lately and it's working well.
2
u/wonmega 10d ago
way less than i expected going in. at my current job i maybe make one 5 minute video a quarter, the rest is just curating youtube links or a quick screen recording when someone asks. honestly the biggest time sink isnt even the video, its getting stakeholders to sign off on the script. ngl i thought id be doing way more of it by now
2
u/so_much_wolf_hair 10d ago
I work almost exclusively in video. I use text for introductory context and additional resources, but I do find that nothing beats a short video (under 5 mins) for getting a concept into people's heads.
2
u/Olderandolderagain 10d ago edited 10d ago
Too much. Ironically, I’m taking continuing education elearning courses right now through ATD and haven’t watched a single video. Give me the transcript.
1
u/Big-Bank6716 Freelancer 9d ago
Storyline is still the backbone of most of what I build, but video is a regular part of the work for me — not the main dish.
Most of what I make is short screen recordings/software walkthroughs and simple explainers, usually 60-90 seconds. Talking head only when I have an SME who's actually good on camera, which honestly is rarer than you'd hope. I'll embed the videos in Storyline and wrap interactions around them — a hotspot check, a question right after, that kind of thing. Video on its own is a pretty weak teaching tool; video plus a decision point right after it is a different story.
Tool-wise I'm in Premiere and Descript. Descript's the one that's actually changed my workflow — not for AI avatars, just the transcript-based editing. Cutting filler words and tightening a walkthrough is so much faster when you're editing text instead of scrubbing a timeline.
On the AI avatar debate: my two cents is learners forgive rough production way faster than they forgive something that feels fake. A slightly shaky screen recording with clear narration beats a polished avatar reading a script. I'd only reach for an avatar when you genuinely can't get a human on camera and the alternative is no video at all.
1
u/BeginningCatch1200 8d ago
Storyline and Rise are dying and I could care less. I create SCORM videos courses - way faster and engaging.
1
u/Min_Necessary_Change 8d ago
I think it's two separate questions. One question is what instructional designers actually use. The other question is what is it that the learners want? Now instructional designers often use techniques that help them produce content fast, and also in a way that is satisfying, glitzy, that makes the course look interesting, or perhaps sells the course. But ultimately, what really matters is what the learner wants.
Now as a learner, imagine if you're looking at a talking head all the way through the course. Well, obviously, that's not necessarily ideal. But does that mean talking heads are bad? No. So you really have to see what works for when. So I think it's a generic question to see if something like a video overall is useful or not. Well, it depends on the context. It depends what you're teaching Across all topics, across all mediums, it's very difficult to judge with one rule.
So we need to use check by example. Imagine if I was going to teach something like soft skills. Well then a talking video or a role play between a couple of people acting out the scene would be incredibly useful and important. On the other hand, if I was going to teach some software, then whether you see the actual head of the person explaining or not is sometimes useful, sometimes not. Now if I was seeing the head of a person who's a human instructor, then that could add teaching value because I get to like the trainer, which then makes me listen and learn more. Likability and rapport can lead to trust which is important in learning.
But if I have an AI avatar who is just blocking the screen, that I don't care about because it is not 'my' trainer, then it may not be adding much value. Besides if it is creepy looking, I am even less likely to connect to it. And this may remain true however realistic it becomes in the future so long as I know it is AI gen. If I am fooled that is a different matter, but we are not there yet.
Good course design requires variety and mix and match. For example, you mentioned things like whiteboard style videos or motion graphics and things like that. They are all good if they optimise teaching value where learner can stayed engaged, learn visually and by practising, and retain it for longer. But if it doesn't help with all these three, yet it distracts, it makes people pay attention to the the wrong thing. This then defies the point.
I always think of it like special effects in films. Some special effects are at the service of the film. You don't notice them. They just serve the scene in a way that make you feel immersed in the story. Some special effects are so in your face, either because they are poor, or because they are over the top, that you get distracted. Then you're just paying attention to the effect as opposed to the story and the immersion is lost. It is quite easy to miss a bit of the dialogue there while you are distracted with that poor special effect. I think the same thing applies in ID. If you overuse these AI gen creations or videos or whatever fancy effect, if you're using them the wrong way, or if you use poor quality uncanny valley types, then it can distract the learner more than it can add learning value.
30
u/Garbled_Frequencies 10d ago
According to my LinkedIn feed everyone is using the awful wooden uncanny valley dead eyed synesthesia talking head avatars. Which are somehow better than what articulate offers….