Having a button to enable whether watching the video is mandatory before moving on to next slide.
Hi Beatrice Matei,
This is a request I receive often when assisting coworkers in setting up courses and I always envision scenes from A Clockwork Orange. I have used SCORM to set timers on slides to prevent users from being able to skip ahead regardless of if they choose to watch the video or not. Even if we require viewing, set timers, or lock the course down like Fort Knox, we don't control an individual's attention. If you're using Arc you can actually see if users are viewing the video, skipping the video entirely, or skipping ahead. The specified item was not found.
I've had better luck using incentives like telling the learner that there will be a quiz question or 5 about what was in the video, etc. or hiding an Easter egg like a secret contest. Just some ideas you can use today.
I hope this helps,
I totally understand the A Clockwork Orange reference and I agree forcing people to watch videos doesn’t mean they will actually do it instead of just letting the video play in the background.
I am already using ARC and wasn’t familiar with SCORM yet, will definitely have to look into it because it sounds like a good solution!
As much as using other course building software is great, having this feature as part of Bridge is a must have. We moved over from World Manager which had this feature and assumed it would be available. I look forward to this getting approved.
Mandating videos won't necessarily suit all, nevertheless the functionality to turn this on or off within the course settings would be valuable.
It would be beneficial to our organization to have this feature implemented. We have many courses that are mandated training through State departmental agencies. Helping us to ensure all material has been covered and guarantee this to our governing bodies would bring us peace of mind.
Although some points were given here that I can appreciate, I think the idea of forced video watching is instructionally flawed. I know that sounds harsh, and I don't mean any disrespect for those that are for it, but if people aren't watching the videos in a course, there is a deeper reason that should probably be addressed through better solution design. This is what I encourage of my clients when they suggest forced video watching. I suggest that maybe we use simulation, scenarios, follow up questions, metric tracking, or other methods to ensure the message was received.
I also consider it from a learner perspective...would I appreciate it if someone forced me to watch a 15 minute video (or even a 2 minute video)? What if I already understand the concepts? I would feel frustrated. I don't want to do that to my learners.
When I see things like this, it suggests to me that we are looking at training as a solution to problems. I would submit that training is not a solution - it is a resource that accompanies a solution to help the solution be implemented smoothly.
I could not agree more! This would be forced playing, not forced watching/listening/comprehending. I typically provide a transcript of all videos anyway. Some learners prefer the text to the video. Why should they have to watch the video if they read the script? If a feature were added, it would definitely HAVE to be a toggle so it's not a forced viewing for all videos.
I understand your reasoning here Josh, and I almost wholeheartedly agree. Almost. While this isn't really the place to talk about theory and learning design, on the part of Bridge as an LMS/service provider, it should be an option that we as learning designers have with our software. In some instances, forcing learners to watch videos is a necessity. For example, compliance training or any legal course work. Sure, I would like to think my organization will watch the videos and then pass a quiz after but sadly, I think we can all agree that isn't a reality. In order for some of us to remain compliant under certain rules, guidelines, laws we need to show that our employees have completed watching the video. The Bridge Studio capability of showing my L&D team which learners watched what part of the video is a huge and powerful data tool for certain content and a requirement for others.
I am a new Bridge user and came here for a solution that wasn't SCORM and sadly there isn't one. It seems like a hugely missed function of the Bridge Studio product that they tout so much.
Hi Rory Sacks,
I would disagree that theory and learning design are critical here, especially since this is a design request. Bridge has focused on user experience and learning design in their development. Tossing that out now feels like tossing the baby out with the bath water to use an old expression.
Even in compliance training is the end result desired that everyone watched the video or do you actually want people to do/decide/create something? In most cases with compliance we want people to do/decide. As in don't sexually harass people or do log your drive time or do follow lock out/tag out, etc. Or we want people to decide sexually harassment isn't cool, or decide to follow standards around lock out/tag out, etc. which can be driven through an emotional experience. I understand there are more precarious compliance standards that require logging a certain amount of training time, but even in those situations there's usually a do/decide outcome and not just 'be subjected to this for 1 hour.' If that time isn't meaningful, then we're just checking boxes and may as well set up a Clockwork Orange apparatus.
I agree with you. We, as L&D want to elicit a result and have our learners make smart decisions. Our clients on the other hand (in this case my internal legal department) want to see hard data that people have completed the video training, passed the exams and completed the course. Again, I agree here that one method is better than another, however, we have to make sure that our learners actually watch the videos (only 8-10 minutes each, no way in hell I would subject anyone to more than that) and move on to the next lesson after watching it. There is always a happy medium somewhere (adjusting length of video content for example) to meet the requirements of an organization. So, theoretically is the the end result for someone to watch the videos? no. But practicality, yes. We (and I assume others) need that hard data to show that everyone in the organization watched the video. Making it a mandatory option for all bridge users for sure is not the right solution, but to make it optional that users complete a video or embedded item in a lesson would be greatly appreciated. There's a reason why all authoring tools (Storyline, Rise, Elucidat, SmartSparrow, Knowbly, etc) offer this option. In some instances, against our better judgement as L&D professionals, it's the path of least resistance with clients.
I can't agree with you more that the purpose of training is to bring about a particular behavior in the learner. Hypothetically, if we could get the learner to do the desired behavior, it wouldn't matter how long or short of a time they spent in training.
However, I find myself in Rory Sacks' shoes when it comes to compliance. When a learner does something contrary to the training, especially in regards to compliance, then the step before holding someone accountable is always validation of training. I.e., how do we know that the learner completed, and passed, said training? If the video is 10 minutes long and average course time is 15 minutes, and the learner spent six minutes in the course, then there is no reasonable way the training was received. Governing bodies say the learner must go back and do the training. They essentially get a "freebie" for their poor decision. At least with the mandatory view option, it could be said the learner spent 15 minutes in the course. It is reasonable to assume they watched the video vs. knowing they couldn't possibly have seen it.
As for ADA, if we had the ability to create comparable courses and receive credit for all for doing one, it would solve that issue. However, Bridge currently doesn't have that feature.
Ahhh, the legal department. Okay, it makes more sense, but I would pose they are still looking for a result beyond 'did they watch this?' More likely something like, can we fire them? can they file a law suit against us? do they understand their responsibility? and my favorite, the big obscure cloud of liability. Instead of posing those specific questions, legal teams I've worked with will sometimes rut into details like 'how can we make sure someone SAW this video?' which I think many of us L&D folk could get thrown out in court as seeing is not doing is not knowing is not understanding. Digging a little deeper can be challenging too as they like to be the ones asking questions, but it's usually worth it to get to the meat of the request.
Are you using any kind of document to support the training? This is where I think a paper trail becomes more justified or quiz questions that point blank ask - Did you understand this content? or Do you acknowledge an understanding and acceptance of the 'blah blah'? or I have viewed the video content and understand I am responsible for X. Get the right language on it and this is more substantial even if they chose to skip the video. You can also double side it and have a quiz question before the video asking if they understand they must view the video and are responsible for XYZ. Then set the course so it requires 100%. I worked government for a few years and we had redundancies in some compliance training for this sole purpose. So it wasn't just a matter of if they checked this box, an entire file was generated showing a paper trail.
Studio does track who views a video, but there's no reporting function around it and it's not neat and tidy to view lots of people at once. We have found it handy when someone just seemed totally clueless about something to go and discover they skipped all the videos and got lucky (or cheated) on the quiz, assuming there was one. (Some of our stuff is more in the moment informational, so we don't always attach a quiz.)
Yes, if legal teams ran the training world, I suspect the Clockwork Orange scenario might be less hypothetical. Nonetheless, we cannot control minds.
I can't speak for Tom but my organization, when it comes to legal compliance and GDPR, wants hard numbers of who watched trainings, completed courses and passed the exam. Should something happen that is the opposite of the training, we can prove they took the training and the liability rests on the user/person not the organization. Simply: we provided training (content), they took it and still did otherwise.
I agree with all your recommendations. Wholeheartedly. However, in some instances, with time crunches, other projects, etc, the path of least resistance is 'make users watch the content' ideal? Absolutely not. Does it follow best practices? not in the slightest. But we have to deal with what we have, are given and apply those best case, pie in the sky approaches to and for departments and trainings that want them or we have the time to apply them.
Going back to the original request for this, it is an oversight on Bridge to not have the ability to force learners to complete a video that is uploaded in to studio. We can serve up the content but can't make sure it's completed, we can see who watched it 100% but can't pull a report on it (also another flaw). This seems to be a flaw in the platform and prioritizes theory of L&D over the practicality we (some of us) face in the industry. As I mentioned above, there is a reason why other LMS systems (Docebo, LearnUpon, Absorb...) and authoring tools (Storyline, Rise, Elucidat...) give designers the option for when it is necessary.
The work around of asking the learner of 'did you understand' the content, doesn't seem to really solve the issue of forcing a learner to watch the video. This could be checked yes ever after a learner has completed the content. I think we are all in agreement the forcing learners to watch videos isn't ideal. I don't want to do it but I (and other like me) have to in certain cases. If I am mistaken, I believe Canvas even has this option.
More than likely this whole thing will go in the blackhole of product requests as I am pretty sure these up votes or down votes mean literally nothing ha.
While I understand the legal aspect of this, a non-sighted user is probably more likely to turn a video off because they are not getting any/enough information from what they are "watching". Does that then mean that they can be punished for not sitting through the whole video if they do not even know what is going on in it? The problem is that legal would be looking for a cut and dry approach and using a must watch indicator could conflict with other rights and laws. Granted there are some exceptions, any good legal team would know or needs to be informed that no matter the solution provided it cannot be universally applied/enforced the same way for all.
Turn-around time for trainings needed and the ability to provide a universal solution for all are contradictory. As with anything in development, things are missed, mistakes are made, and because of that allowances and exceptions must exist or it will just create issues for legal and potentially the company in the long run.
Think about a lawsuit. Imagine someone is suing because they had to watch the whole video without other options and you are a smaller company. Who is going to get sued in the end? The small company or Bridge/Instructure or whoever owns them? While I am sure there is some legal jargon that can remove liability of Bridge in that case, it is probably in the best interest of the company to avoid the risk in the first place.
I do not disagree that there needs to be more/better reporting on the time taken during the course. I also understand the need to track the time spent training due to California and other laws, but I do not know if forcing the watching of the video will get the desired absorption of knowledge or your other goals for training. Based on the restrictions which I have seen in some SCORMs, it has just increased frustration and took away from the purpose/effectiveness of the training. Instead the trainees are "just trying to get through it".
Actually, this could also complicate things when the ability to add quiz questions to videos or other potential features in Studio from a development perspective, which could be another reason that Bridge may not want to implement something like this yet.
Adam, well put on your points. However, i would argue, that videos which explain the content appropriately are in fact better suited for those who are visually impaired. Same as with a podcast. A video can be designed to give the same information visually and audibly where watching something isn't required but an added bonus. We have many people (as I am sure you do as well) that listen to content in one window and multi-task in another.
Again, pie in the sky of creating training vs. the practicality of time constraints, SME availability, other projects taken in to account, forcing learners to watch content will have the desired effect we are looking for. We can agree that our trainees are 'just trying to get through it' which should be the motto for compliance and legal training. It is a requirement by an organization and low on the employees 'hierarchy of need' when it comes to training. No one wants to do it but they have to.
I am not debating whether this is right or wrong. Should we all be striving to create better, more engaging content that goes beyond just watching a video and regurgitating the information in a multiple choice format? yes absolutely. But that is not always the reality we are blessed with. Which very much is at times 'hey, we have a compliance training that we need to create from scratch and launch in 2 weeks'. Great, then just give me the option, via check box, to mandate learners watch a video before progressing to the next lesson. That's all. I am by no means saying or suggesting other people have to use it, I am just saying Bridge should provide us the option (much like it does with comments on a video) to just say 'yes this is required' or 'no this can be skipped'. If your organization has ADA requirements and this doesn't fit, then don't use it. It just seems like an oversight by Bridge that this is not an option.
While I do not think or at least hope that not everyone has the same "just trying to get through it" mentality, I agree that a well designed video that explains everything that is visually displayed through narration and dialogue would be ideal.
I highly doubt that all videos created for training are well thought out or even address accessibility needs correctly. That is why I could see Bridge dragging its feet on a feature like this.
I do think that if you have thoroughly tested your videos for all users needs, then having that as an option would be great. I think some of our content creators are too new to the area of accessibility (an ever-changing field) to believe that our content would be fully accessible upon initial completion let alone still meet accessibility needs in a year or two. If you are that confident in your content, then go for it, but I do not see my university's implementation going that route.
Warning - Semi-unrelated rant to follow:
Personally, we are still seeing the blame game being played for accessibility issues being seen with our SCORM content (Bridge Learn) where our third party creators (multiple companies) blame the LMS and Bridge blames the creators. It just leads me to believe that Bridge has bugs and accessibility issues to work out on their end before they can consider keeping up their end of the liability of a video being mandatory. The biggest problem I see is the inconsistency of the "Total Time in Course (seconds)" (Bridge Learn Course Enrollment Export) as it only seems to capture the latest session and does not correctly work for some versions of Chrome. I know this is a different product, but it does not leave me confident in the stats Studio might produce among other stability concerns.
I too experience the issue of videos being bypassed. Sometimes it is due to the learner using IE and the video not opening and being bypassed, and sometimes it is willful. I agree with Joshua Pope that there is a deeper issue going on and there needs to be another check in place.
When a learner fails to pass the test and get locked out, I look at the the time they spent in the course before resetting them. If they have spent less time that the video takes, I let their supervisor know prior to resetting them. Of course, the flaw in the software still shows them as complete, so it is a periodic manual review that I have to do.
Please note that requiring the watching of a video would be pointless for a blind person. a11y
To get around that (if it were to be developed) you would need to have the alternate choice of spending the length of time needed for a screen reader to read the equivalent audio description (if there is dialog between multiple people someone who is blind would have to pick up on the difference in voices). Even if captions are up to necessary requirements (labeling speakers and noises) a screen reader does not read the captions unless the captions are turned into a transcript.
Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.1
Which is why Video Transcript Editing, Linking, and Storage is essential or Bridge is just going to be responsible for hosting SCORMs.
Screen readers not reading captions is from what I have found so far, but someone more familiar with them may know better.
I hadn't considered this and yes, you're right. I've been on teams where we used alternate training methods for ADA situations, which always bothered me. Shouldn't we be able to have a universal solution that works for all learners?
Retrieving data ...