As with the start of every year, experts in the field of training and development turn to prophesizing and theorizing the up-and-coming trends. Some forecast that 2004 will witness an increase in the use of video, simulations, and other high bandwidth bells and whistles.

Should we listen? Last year, a number of companies providing online training listened and succumbed to these kinds of predictions. They became convinced that gratuitous high fidelity multimedia needed to be implemented for their survival in the industry. Unfortunately, many of these companies did not last through the year. What was the problem? For the most part, it was the upkeep. Most companies and users in this industry could not sustain the cost of maintaining courseware that requires expensive upgrades. What was learned is that superior content and sound instructional design far outweigh high impact video productions and pricey, and often pointless, simulation games.

What is Multimedia?
Multimedia is often considered to be the most misused term in online learning. Multimedia refers to computer-mediated information that is presented concurrently in more than one medium. It can consist of text; still graphic images; motion graphics; animations; hypermedia; photographs; video; and audio, i.e., sounds, music, and narration.

The Multimedia Bandwagon
Many people mistakenly believe that to have effective online training, glossy multimedia must be integrated into course delivery. For instance, in a study of organizations that offered its employees online training, 88% reported to have multimedia capability, and 47% of those without capability had solid plans to obtain it (Kleen & Shell, 1994) However, when asked why they included (or intended to include) multimedia, the most frequent response involved a "but everyone else is doing it" stance. Is this the way courses should be designed? Not if learning is the ultimate goal.

Over the last twenty years, most of the related literature has not attempted to quantify the actual advantages of incorporating multimedia in online training. Few have questioned the "overly optimistic multimedia paradigm change and asked for a more realistic assessment of multimedia-assisted instruction" (Hoogeveen, 1995). Only recently did critics begin chastising those who jumped on an unproven bandwagon without careful consideration of the benefits (Bollentin, 1998; Oppenheimer, 1997; Pepi & Scheurman, 1996; Schrage, 1998).

The Effectiveness of Multimedia
Comprehension. In a study comparing courses involving text-only, complete audio with full text, and complete audio with partial text, all of the groups achieved acceptable levels of learning and there were no statistical differences in test scores, thereby demonstrating no learning advantage with the addition of audio (Barron & Kysilka, 1993). Similar studies have found no differences in test scores between participants who took courses that incorporated a) text-only, text with video clips, and text with audio of the video clips (Schmeeckle, 2000); b) text-only, video-only, and text with video (Jones, 2002); c) text-only, text with video, and text with still graphic images (Cofield, 2001); or text-only and hypermedia (Dillon & Gabbard, 1998). These research results reveal that the use of audio, video, still graphic images, and/or hypermedia do not strengthen or enhance learning at a deeper level of understanding.

Recall and Retention. In determining how well information is learned, recall and retention are important factors. Luna and McKenzie (1997) and Wegner and Payne (1994) revealed no differences in recall or retention in learners using a multimedia-enhanced online training program versus those using an exclusively text-based system. In addition, when four groups were tested (text with pictures, words only, text only, and control), a test of recall also did not demonstrate significant differences (Najjar, 1996).

The Efficiency of Multimedia
Time on Task. Another variable with which to assess online training is efficiency, i.e., the ratio of useful work to energy expended. In a training sense, time on task is most often measured by the amount of time spent in a particular course. In a study comparing text, audio, and video in online instruction, Schmeeckle (2000) found the text-only group to be the most efficient, taking 12% to 13% less time than the other two groups with no decrease in learning value. In another study by Barron and Kysilka (1993), the text-only group completed the training course in significantly less time than the audio-only group and audio with full text group. Understandably, the text-only group was not slowed by listening to the audio version of the text.

These findings provide several incentives for designing text-only courses. First, job productivity can be maintained by decreasing time away from the job. Not all businesses or institutions can afford to have lengthy training courses (Schmeeckle, 2000). Second, more training can be conducted to increase the skills of the labor force. Third, the decrease in training time can free up training staff to focus on content that requires hands-on demonstrations and practice.

Cost. In measuring the efficiency of multimedia in online training, cost is a key factor. The standard rule is that the greater the complexity of course delivery, the greater the cost of development. An online multimedia-heavy course is likely to be 200% to 500% more expensive than a text-heavy course (Curtain, 2002). One reason for this significant difference involves the cost of the software. With every delivery mode incorporated into a course, new computer programs must be purchased; and, the more intricate the multimedia, the higher the price of the software. Plus, in addition to the one-time price to buy the software, designers and developers must also purchase an individual licensing fee pay for each additional user and pay for upgrades, which are available for most software on a semi-frequent basis and can be quite expensive. Consider this as well: If training content needs to be updated, and the training is video or audio-based, then the development costs to update the content will potentially need to include a complete re-shoot of the original. Re-hiring actors, re-developing scripts, and re-editing video or audio will need to occur before the training is ready for re-distribution-and this can be very expensive.

The additional costs of glitzy multimedia are attributed to the increase in time it takes to develop, produce, deliver, and maintain it (Moonen, 1997). Like the software costs, the more intricate the multimedia, the more time it takes to create and maintain the course. The time involved in creating heavily enriched multimedia courses has been found to be five to ten times greater than for developing text-based courses (Curtain, 2002). The attempt to keep complex, multimedia courses current also leads to more costly expenditures.

Conclusion
At some point in recent history, word got around that online training without entertainment was worthless. While graphic images, audio, and perhaps even video can be enjoyable to view, it is actually compelling content that truly engages users and inspires learning. With all of the delivery modes available, what seems to be most important is the quality of content and design, along with the time, effort, and cost of maintaining and upgrading the training.

A well-organized and skillfully written course offers learners accessibility and adaptability not available by other mediums. An effective learning experience is contingent upon the quality of content and instructional design, not the media itself. This was true last year and it's true in the year to come.

---

References

1. Barron, A. E., & Kysilka, M. L. (1993). The effectiveness of digital audio in online-based training. Journal of Research on Computing in Education, 25(3), 277-289.
2. Cofield, J. L. (2001). The effectiveness of streaming video in web-based instruction. Published doctoral dissertation, The University of Alabama.
3. Curtain, R. (2002). Online delivery in the vocational education and training sector: Improving cost effectiveness. Leabrook, Australia: Australian National Training Authority.
4. Dillon, A. & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature in learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Education Research, 68(3), 322-349.
5. Hoogeveen, M. (1995). Towards a new multimedia paradigm: Is multimedia assisted instruction really effective? Proceedings of the Annual Conference of ED-MEDIA, Austria.
6. Jones, S. P. (2002). A comparison of online text and subject video in relation to learning strategy. Published doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University.
7. Kleen, B. A., & Shell, L. W. (1994). Multimedia management issues in higher education. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the IACIS, 107-113.
8. Luna, C. J. & McKenzie, J. (1997). Testing multimedia in the community college classroom. T.H.E. Journal, 24(7), 78-81.
9. Moonen, J. (1997). The efficiency of telelearning. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 1(2).
10. Najjar, L. J. (1996). The effects of multimedia and elaborative encoding on learning. Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology.
11. Oppenheimer, T. (1997) The computer delusion. The Atlantic Monthly, 45-62.
12. Pepi, D., & Scheurman, G. (1996). The emperor's new computer: A critical look at our appetite for computer technology. Journal of Teacher Education, 47(3), 229-236.
13. Schmeeckle (2000). Online training: An evaluation of the effectiveness and efficiency of training law enforcement personnel over the Internet. Published doctoral dissertation, The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.
14. Schrage, M. (1998). An interview with Educom Review: Technology, silver bullets and big lies. Educom, 33(1), 32-37.