Record It or Rebuild It? The Better Lecture Video Choice Shows Up a Year Later

Two teachers delivered the same professional development course last fall which lasted for 90 minutes. The audience and learning objectives they had almost were the same. Professor Aaron Miles recorded the entire session in one take.

Dr. Nina Patel has adapted the material into eight, six minute lessons. After 12 months both were able to have usable video. Aaron's recording was very long, containing some old information. There were 8 smaller lessons that Nina had and only 2 of them needed changing.

It is the difference that is more important than any other thing that will occur in the launch week. It changes the way of updating courses, translating, finding and reusing. This guide will explore the two approaches and make comparisons when it comes to production time, updates, language versions/ease of navigation, completing and long term maintenance.

Recording Wins When the Deadline Is Close

If a course must be available Friday, recording has an obvious advantage. Record the session with the instructor in a room. A basic lecture recording can preserve the instructor, slides, audio, and classroom presentation in one pass.

Afterwards some editing might be necessary. But what matters is that the scenes themselves need not be reproduced. For guest lectures, short term trainings, event sessions, courses which have short shelf life, it's the speed that matters. It will be more time consuming in the early stages to rebuild.

Someone needs to research the source, divide up those ideas, identify the sequence and proofread each section. This is extra work that may be not worth doing for one lecture. If there is not a possibility for reuse, then it is appropriate to record.

Version Two Changes the Math

So now let's say one policy changes 6 months later. The old policy can be found at minute 34 of Aaron's 90 minute recording. He mentions it again towards the end of minute 71. The other moments might need to be replaced in another recording session. Then the team must be able to add and edit the new material into the original video.

In any case, a minor change in content results in a bigger task for production. The policy is included in one six minute lesson and therefore only the lesson needs to be revised. The other 7 lessons can be left as is. That's the most compelling argument for reconstruction over the long-term. The smaller the units, the more distinct the zones around future changes are.

Prior to making the selection of either method, review the typical changes that occur in the course:

●       policies and procedures

●       product or software procedures

●       regional examples

●       instructor commentary

The contents of a history lecture might not change much. A policy course can be changed several times in a year. There can also be a change in captions and handouts, the wording of the quiz and other related resources in case the policy is altered. The mini lessons assist in determining those dependencies. Teams are able to see the impacted piece, without opening the whole course. Version two marks the beginning of rewards for rebuilding.

A Second Language Makes the Gap Wider

Translation starts with a finished performance with a long recorded lecture. There may be a need to review spoken language and written text separately. Slides may include labels or diagrams that also may require changes.

Examples might require additional review. Translated narration should be the same as what appears on the screen. This is a bit trickier if an instructor is talking off the cuff or using terms that have already changed. A rebuilt course begins with a set of source materials. That provides the team a cleaner environment to work with translation prior to production.

One example of this route is Leadde.ai, which creates structured video from a document. The workflow generates an outline and script from that source. Translation can cover both the script and on-screen text. That detail is important as subtitles don't localize everything that the pupil sees. The workflow also provides three length presets:

●       Summary: about 1-3 minutes

●       Balanced: about 3-5 minutes

●       In-depth: about 5-7 minutes

Those presets can help teams to split lengthy material without having to select each segment length individually. However, the responsibility of editors and authors in translation remains. The course owner will need to check terminology and local examples prior to publishing another language version.

There should be one obvious owner for the source as well. If not, various language staff/teams can translate various versions of the same lesson. It's not a language issue; it's an operational problem. Clean source and approval pathway is as important as translation tools.

Shorter Lessons Are Easier to Find Again

A long lecture will be effective if people will be watching the entire thing. When a learner comes back 3 weeks later with one question, it is not as effective. Learner may recall that the answer was somewhere in the middle. With it, you may have to go through a lengthy timeline. Lessons are smaller to provide structure to the course.

A learner is able to go back to the segment which is the same as the problem currently being worked on. This is almost a microlearning concept in which learning is structured in smaller chunks on specific topics. The idea is not that each lesson need be small. Some concepts require explanation, context and time.

A six-minute lesson is easier to find than minute 48 in a long video. One segment can be used to assist another course and not copy the entire lecture. This explanation may be included in onboarding and refresher training. It can also be used in conjunction with a certification course. That re-use is easier with smaller units.

Completion Needs Context, Not a Magic Number

Often course teams wish for a simple answer as to completion. One cannot be achieved by the format alone. A video that is shorter might be more feasible to complete. A good teacher can also keep the attention for a considerably longer duration.

The comparison which helps you is your own audience. Observe viewers' stopping points. See what segments they watch again and what lessons they have questions about. Then make comparisons of those patterns with the aim of the course. A 90-minute recording might be appropriate as a reference.

They do not always need full completion to be useful. There is a different standard when it comes to required training. Course owners might be more concerned about getting the learner to the end. Patterns can be more readily inspected in rebuilt lessons.

Each segment has a specific topic, and has a specific reason for watching. Avoid creating a generic completion milestone. Use the viewing behavior and learning purpose of the course instead. That provides the team with some evidence they can take action on during the next revision.

Where Rebuilding Falls Short

It's easier to rebuild but there's something to give up. There are interruptions and further questions in a live room, body language and spontaneous discussions. Those moments can help to inform the lecturer's impression of the lecture. This is preserved in the recorded version to a greater degree since the instructor is teaching in real time.

Rebuilt lesson is more like a controlled lesson. This control can be helpful in maintenance but it can remove spontaneous exchanges that might be helpful in the session. Users will be able to ask questions beside the video and get answers. It is unable to simulate real-time interaction with instructor and class. A few courses also depend on a visual demonstration.

In case the lesson includes live software steps, it might not be the best way to go the document first rebuild. If that's the case, those can be recorded with screen-recording software that can record menus and cursor movement. It can also retain the real time actions. The most effective rebuilding is where the material being rebuilt is the teaching and not the performance.

Use a Simple Rule: Record the Event, Rebuild the Asset

You don't need a complicated scorecard to determine which option you choose. If there's value in the event, but not the recorded lecture, record it. Resources include the presence of the instructor and a live discussion. This can be achieved through the use of the approach for guest sessions and temporary topics. Can also be used for one-off classes. Rebuild when the course is an asset.

Economics change with repeated use since maintenance is part of the production. A core course should be something that is readily available and not require a ninety minute re-invention. It also should be translatable and reusable.

It should be navigable by the learners and should not require learners to search through a lengthy timeline. There's a compromise. Downside to the rebuild is the lack of some of that room presence and spontaneity of live questions.

Therefore, conduct one working test prior to developing a complete course. Select one lecture, which is frequently rotated. Rebuild one six-minute section and hand its next revision to another team member. Make note of the point at which that individual stops. If the process holds up, rebuilding may be worth scaling. If it stalls, fix the workflow before scaling.