Conversations with the Course Champion 1

A basic first step of any successful learning design/courseware development project – be it for the classroom or for Elearning – involves analysis. Usually it’s a needs analysis determining what the problem is and whether or not training may or may not be able to rectify it. (But, that’s the subject of another blog I wrote on that sometime back.)

More to the point answering a few simple questions before everyone gets started.

Right at the start ask the course champion (or perhaps the Subject Matter Expert) “What does a successful outcome from this learning project being proposed look like?” Another way to ask that is “What do you expect the takers of this course to be able to do after they’ve completed it?”

If about this time they give you a blank stare like you’d get if you’d just asked them to define exactly how high is “Up,” then you can guide the discussion further using questions like “Are we just making the learner familiar with the content? Or are we striving to make them proficiency with it?” (And yes, there IS a difference between those two concepts – a big difference.)

That difference usually gets brought to the forefront with your next question, “How will that be measured exactly?” Now you’re asking evaluation methods which can be anything - a knowledge test, a skills demonstration (practical exam some used to call it) and including the issuance of some kind of credentialing for successfully passing said measurement. It could even involve some minimal measurement at the end of the learning event(s) followed by a “transfer to the job setting” follow-on measurement at some given interval (e.g., 6 months) after having reported for duty after the training.

By the end of this portion of the course champion interview – and quite honestly, that’s what it really is -  your instructional design juices should be flowing pretty well and the courseware developer wheels in your head should beginning to spin with ideas about what direction to go with the training. But, I would encourage you to get the answer to some other questions before you begin laying out your design.

These questions involve your typical learner’s demographics – age, first language, skillsets and abilities and credentials they possess coming into the training. There’s nothing more embarrassing (and hugely wasteful) than to build an entire course outline, timeframe and budget based on certain assumed language proficiency, knowledge level etc only to find out it hugely wrong and your course with a huge gap in it that there’s not time and budget left to develop a fix for.

Moral to the story: Never assume anything at the outset of a learning project. Ask anything and everything about you can . And start with expectations and definitions.

Repurposing with eyes wide open

We’re all continually forced to keep “doing more with less.” Everyone is facing it - big and small business, even the public school systems – and in every aspect. It’s just the times we live and work in.

As a result, repurposing is an option that has more appeal than ever. Repurposing – also known as using something created for one use for another use that may or may not be similar to what it was designed for – can be a very useful and effective solution.

If we go into it with our eyes wide open.

By that I mean, we have to realize that – all things considered – whatever we’re trying to repurpose wasn’t designed or built for the task we’re trying to use it for. If it was, using it wouldn’t be repurposing it at all. It would be using it for what it was made for.

But it wasn’t.

So, in repurposing we have to keep in mind that what we’re repurposing won’t fit the use 100+% and won’t do anything and everything we might need. But as long as it’s close or does most of them, then that’s the compromise we make in repurposing.

But if we do repurposing right, we will have went into it with eyes wide open to these compromises and are willing to put up with them to realize the cost benefit the repurposing allows us to reap by preventing a more expensive custom-built or new perfect solution.

Just to be clear; let me say again, I think repurposing is fine. We just have to go into it knowing there will be some compromises and it most likely won’t be a 100% perfect solution. But using a repurposed something allows us to hit most of the objectives and saves time and/or money.

Common sense, you say? I agree. But you’d be surprised how many times the “it’s not a perfect solution” can get trampled over and forgotten in a project - especially when project team members or project managers change..

Case in point; I was a participant on a project (but not the project mgr) where a Commercial Off The Shelf (COTS) software package was being purchased. At first, the software was selected because it filled almost the entire list of needs.

But...as time went by, more groups joined the project and next thing we knew our project had team members from different groups getting in arguments with one another, ladies in tears and all kinds of calamity and drama. Why all the fuss? Because the new stakeholder groups and personnel came into the project - late - with more desired features than the project originally started out with. You guessed it - scope creep! - and they'd allowed it to cloud the knowledge that the COTS software wasn't a custom built solution. Instead, it had been selected because it was being repurposed, if you will, to fit most - but not all - of our needs in one solution.

So, repurposing something is fine. But keep your eyes wide open and realize it wasn't custom built solution. In short, it ain't gonna be perfect. But, it works.

Of "knowns" and "unknowns...."

OVERLOAD!

When sitting in some kind of adult learning situation trying to learn something – a new piece of software, the latest regulatory changes to impact your field or even just learning what and how a coworker does in her job so you can cover her duties while she’s on vacation – have you ever felt like so much new information was coming your way that your head was about to explode from it all?

Learning theory types call this cognitive overload. This is the condition where your brain has way too much new stuff coming at it way too fast to process, archive and tag it all for later recall.

As educators/teachers/trainers/Workplace Learning Professionals/Whatever New Buzzword our profession is referred to by, we need to stay cognizant of this problem and do everything we can to prevent this condition in our learners. But, how to do that effectively is the challenge.

As a solution, I’d suggest taking advantage of the Law of Primacy. That’s the Learning Law that says that, being people, the things we all learned first are those that create the strongest impressions in our minds. In other words, what we learn first is what is learned best (lasts the longest in our memories).

Another variant of this idea is to say that what people already know has a more permanent position in their minds than the new information or skill that they’re learning does.

So, let’s take advantage of that by teaching “from knowns to unknowns.” That’s perhaps just a fancy way of saying let’s narrow down what we’re trying to teach them by focusing on what might be different about the new material from what they already know. 

Some examples to help illustrate the point:

• “Remember how Microsoft Word used to have file extensions of .doc? Well in those created using Microsoft Word 2007, they’re .docx files now – the ‘x’ at the end meaning…..”
• “You know how the umptywidget in the Acme models works, right? Well, that same component in the Binford models works exactly the opposite of that.”  
• “Most of the new employee health insurance package is the same as it used to be. But, here’s the 3 things that are different in the new plan….”

Taking learners from their knowns to the unknowns (new stuff) builds on what they already know (the Law of Primacy) and reduces the quantity of the new material coming at them (reducing cognitive overload).  This makes for a far more comfortable, effective and enjoyable learning and teaching experience.



Graphic source: My own creation in PowerPoint.

So...what's on the radio?

So, you’ve found out you have to give a presentation, write an article or teach a class in the near future. You’re starting to make your outline but you’re drawing a blank as to where to start.

Why should you invest the brief amount of time it will take you to read this entry? Actually, we’ll come back to this point later.

For now, to get you started on your outline, may I suggest you listen to the radio? Specifically, I suggest you to tune into WII-FM.

Before you reach for your iPod or call up iTunes on your iPad or actually head over to your home entertainment center, I should tell you I’m not referring to any kind of electronic device. Rather, I’m referring to you tuning into What’s In It For Me. Not you specifically but your audience.

In other words, your talk or article isn’t all about you. Just the opposite.

Put yourself in their position. What’s in it for them to listen to your talk or read your article? Why should they devote the time and energy to pay attention to what you have to say? Here’s a couple of examples:

·        

• You’ve been tasked to give a presentation at your next staff meeting intending to change the way your coworkers fill out an expense report. The WII-FM approach would be to tailor your presentation to emphasize how doing their reports differently will result in them getting their reimbursement money back faster.
• You are writing a blog entry hoping to pass on some of your wit and wisdom about how to give effective presentations or write interesting articles. Thinking from the perspective of your audience and answering for them – all the way through it - the question of “What’s In It For Me” to read that blog entry significantly increases not only the chance they’ll actually read it all the way through and to act on your suggestions.

Personally, I’ve experienced great success using the WII-FM approach. I know you will too. Best of luck on your upcoming presentation or the article you’re writing.

Dave's “Rule of 10” for changing ILT into elearning

Experienced elearning instructional designers often get naïve directions to “take the course that Joe has been teaching in the classroom for years, digitize it and get it out on the internet.” That’s often times followed by “It shouldn’t take more than a couple weeks to do that, right?” And most of the time both of those statements have been preceeded with assumptions and proclamations about how cheaply it can be done.

Transitioning existing Instructor-led Training (ILT) into elearning could be the subject of a dozen blog entries. But, this particular entry will discuss what I call the “Rule of 10.”

Firstly, ILT and elearning have about as much in common as a cruise ship does with a submarine. They both transport people and they both do so in or on the ocean. After that…. Well, that’s about it.

Yes, an ILT course and an elearning course both have similar content and a similar audience. After that…. Well, that’s about it.

For example, the instructor is the primary deliverer of the content in an ILT course. But, in the elearning world, the computer monitor and speakers are what delivers the content. Hence, while an ILT audience watches and listens to the instructor, the elearning audience watches the monitor and listens to the audio.

Additionally, while the instructor may in fact leave the same graphic (“slide”) up on the screen for lengthy presentation about it, the audience doesn’t necessarily become bored with it because the instructor and what is being said – in other words not just the slide image - is the main focus of the learners’ attention. Learner engagement is done through voice inflections, hand gestures, visual aids beyond or outside the slide on the screen and so on.

Quite the opposite is going on in the elearning world.

During the elearning presentation, the learner has nothing else to look at than what’s on the computer monitor. Hence, learner engagement is established and maintained through audio talent voice inflections and what’s happening on that monitor.

I’d like you to try something. Do a Google search for “Abraham Lincoln” and select an image of Abe. Put it on your monitor full screen. Then have someone read something to you for 90 seconds. (The actual text of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address works well for this exercise.)

How did you do? Were you able to concentrate on what was being read to you? All the way for 90 seconds? If you’re like most people, your mind would start to become bored with the visual of Lincoln pretty early on and your mind likely started to wander and your listening to and retention of what was being read suffered.

Enter, Dave’s “Rule of 10.” Staring at the same static image for even 30 seconds while the audio “speaks” can dull the senses to the point of losing engagement. Engagement lost is content comprehension and retention lost.

Back to the task of converting Joe’s ILT course into elearning. In his instructor notes he has multiple 

bullet points noted to present on only one slide (graphic) on the screen. By now you’re probably asking, why doesn’t Joe suffer that same problem of losing learner engagement in the classroom presentation of that same material then? Why does the Elearning version need a whole bunch of graphics to present that content?

Great questions. The answer is because Joe can move about, look learners in the eye, gesture, point to or hold up other objects supporting his points and a host of other things. In other words, because the instructor is the focus not the graphic on the screen.

So, what is Dave’s “Rule of 10?” Simply this; if you’re challenged to transition an existing ILT course into an elearning course – or you’re supposed to take some other kind of live presentation and turn it into something web-deployable – you need 10 times the graphics that you would need to make that same presentation in front of a live audience. Because when the audience has nothing to do but stare at a monitor, you need several different graphics changing periodically to match their visual engagement to the audio points being presented.

If you don’t you have risk of 1) learners just staring at a black screen while the audio talks (i.e., no graphic to support audio) or 2) the…same…old…graphic..staying…on…the…screen…while…they… struggle…to…concentrate…on…what…the…audio…is…saying…and…OMG…is…that…ever…boring!

Beware: It’s not a miracle cure….

This entry is addressed more to the course champions and project managers of the world.

Imagine the football team that in the last 2 minutes of a tied game sees its big name quarterback come onto the field and…the team’s other 10 players just lay down on the grass and say, “Thank goodness you’re here. You take it from here and win this game for us.”

Believe it or not, this can happen in effect when a credentialed, seasoned instructional designer (ID) effort gets brought into a project. So, a word to the wise here, course champions and others – be it an individual or outsourcing to a whole team of IDs – is not, contrary to what you might think, the miracle cure for a project.

That’s right. Doing so won’t end hunger or bring about world peace either.

I know; it’s disappointing to hear this.

But, I think it’s necessary for everyone amongst The Powers That Be in a courseware initiative to understand this. Just because you bring in folks with courseware development credentials etc – while we can and often do some outstanding educational product development – we are only as smart or dumb as productive or not as your system keeps us.

By this I mean bringing in credentialed ID help doesn’t exonerate the other members of the process from contributing their fair share to the goals of the project. The course champion will still need to procure project funding, subject matter experts (SMEs) will still have to contribute both input and expertise and so on.

Remember; your design team, be they one or a hundred strong, is only is only as effective as the supply of content resources, SME expertise and availability etc keeps them.

If the data or expertise from which content will be built is not made available then you can’t expect a miracle from the ID portion of the team when it’s kept deaf, dumb and blind in the process. One option would be providing the ID portion the opportunity to do independent research – within limits. Just realize research hours go against the timetable and budget.

If the SMEs aren’t made available to contribute basic materials and expertise for content to be developed, then don’t be surprised if the ID portion of the team doesn’t create much basic (alpha draft) content and the schedule begins to fall behind.

Similarly, if SMEs don’t conduct effective alpha, beta and final draft reviews using their professional expertise and give timely feedback to the ID portion, how does it know whether and how to make what changes and improvements to the draft so it is satisfactory?

Adding credentialed and seasoned instructional design professionals to your project can really help it go from just an idea to a very high-quality reality. (The sooner in the project’s lifespan they’re brought in the better.) Just realize that bringing them in doesn’t mean the rest of the entire project team can just abandon any involvement in it. They’re just as critical with an ID on board as before.

Remember, a project team is called a team for a reason. If your project manager doesn't watch out for this "laying down" possibility, your project could be doomed.

Scope creep. It's not just for projects. Part One.

Have you ever been in a class or training session with a list of objectives or modules that the instructor never gets to because time runs out before they do? Or...have you ever been that same instructor that always has more teaching points to get to and accomplish than you have class time left?

If so, may I make a couple of suggestions?

First, take a look at the instructional design of the training. Ask yourself, is all of what you see necessary to accomplish the course objectives as they're stated? If the answer is no, then you know what to do - trim it.

Now, before you form the thought that "It's a poor craftsman that blames his tools" in questioning the design of the training, let me point out that oftentimes experts tend to cram a course full of way more stuff than is needed to meet the course objectives. So, if you need to cut stuff out, by all means do so.

But, if an objective comparison of the course objectives to the content reveal that the content quantity is appropriate, then can the training schedule be expanded to add more time? If so, then add what's needed.

Or maybe the course needs to be broken into more than one course.

If you can't do any of that, then read the next entry for some further discussion....

Scope creep. It's not just for project management. Part Deux

In the previous entry, we discussed running out of training time before you as the course instructor have accomplished all the teaching objectives you need to.

And it was established that the material reveals that all the existing course content is absolutely necessary to accomplish the course objectives. And there's no way to add to the allotted class time either.

So, what to do? In such case, may I suggest that you look in the mirror?

That's right; give yourself and how you conduct yourself in the class an objective analysis. Specifically, how do you deal with questions from the class audience?

For example - and a very simplistic one at that (just to quickly make the point); you have just completed presenting the portion of the class session related to the enabling objective that the learner should be able to perform simple addition of whole numbers. You demonstrated this by performing the calculation of 2 apples + 2 apples = 4 apples and that adding 2 more apples would = 6 apples.

A learner speaks up and says, "Excuse me, but this math stuff is pretty cool the way it works! Who thought this science up and how did they discover it?"

Now you have a choice; you could "go down a rabbit trail" with the class and explain the history of mathematics discovery. And... after the class is over... you'll still be wondering why you ran out of class times before you'd accomplished all the teaching objectives.

Or, you could simply respond to the question by responding with, "That's a VERY good question. But, it's beyond the scope of this class/today's lesson [or whatever]. So, why don't we talk after class is over today and I'd be happy to tell you who discovered how math works."

Sounds simple enough, but how often do we as instructors do that? Sadly, not often enough. Be it due to an eagerness to answer every student's every question, show off how much more we know about the subject or other motivations, the cold hard truth is all too often instructors go down those rabbit trails and, consequently, run out of class time before running out of teaching points.

Moral to this story? Let the scope of the course objectives dictate how you respond to out-of-scope questions that might come up during class. If the question is within the scope of the class, by all means answer it right then. If it's outside scope, defer it to an after class discussion.