Background
I recently read this post by Tony Karrer discussing the development of what we traditionally call pure courseware versus the creation of Reference Hybrids Shift in eLearning from Pure Courseware towards Reference Hybrids. Though posted in 2006, this post seems very relevant even today and I feel like I have a lot to say about the probable solution to the discussion that this course brought out.
Citing past experience
In one of my previous organization, our management was looking at buying a rapid elearning tool that would make the creation of courses faster and easier. Now thats the impression the general audience has about rapid elearning tools, and is also the obvious reason why they think that buying the tool will solve all their training problems. Exactly what the vendors would love you to believe when they sell their tool. But, I think it's time we start being more realistic and start looking at what it is that we really want, and not conclude on using rapid elearning tools without understanding the essence of what they are equipped to deliver. Another post by Tony - What is Rapid elearning? really brings out the reality and I suggest reading this to get a better understanding of rapid elearning.
So there after me and my team, who believed that a custom made course design could be used to deliver the same business goals managed to convince our management over time, that we could deliver what the tool promised and much better, as we already had the basic framework for a custom course template (in HTML, JavaScript and Flash) in place by then. Now that was a successful transaction there as our instructional designers were happy that they would continue have the opportunity to design interesting strategies that would enable achievement of the training objectives and also engage the learner. I do not mean to say the available rapid elearning tools cannot create engaging courses but there are issues when you do get down to a lot of specifics. Janet Clarey's post clarifies this point better .
What's the point I'm making here?
Now let's get to the point without digressing from the main topics that were discussed in Tony's posts. The bottomline is that we need to look at training from a more holistic point of view than just arguing about what is phased out and what isn't. The point is, that we started making traditional courseware at one time and it worked pretty well. But when we evaluated the courses, overtime we found that there were several gaps in spite of all the instructional design strategies that went into creating the courses. Then we started asking questions like why is this not working, what did we miss out on, is this kind of courseware not working? And then boom, it strikes us that we need to change the way we do training. Maybe the 'traditional' way is not working because learners just want on-the-job, just-in-time and on-demand training. We should be able to give learners what they want, when they want it, and in whichever format they want it. Then came the age where we started believing that mobile learning was the next big thing. But please let me know how effective mobile learning has been? I am really curious as to me, it seemed completely unrealistic to believe that people could learn how to do their job from a tiny screen on a handheld device! Maybe this is because I am a digital immigrant species and not a digital native. Please fill me in here.
What's the solution?
Now, let's get specific and categorize all the random thoughts that I listed above. We're talking about 'traditional' courseware versus reference hybrids like just-in-time and just enough learning. My answer to this though is to remove the 'versus' part and start looking at an entire training solution.
First let's set our goal. We have an audience that needs training on a particular topic. You need to study your audience profiles to be able to come to a consensus about what modes you need to deliver the training.
Example Scenario 1: If you are designing training for teens to learn about using a specific 'cool' gizmo, you would be missing the basic point if you think of making formal training online/computer based training for this. This kind of a situation demands what you call just enough and just in time.
Solution:
So we can provide the following information:
Now what if the product is complex to use? Well then you need to put more effort and probably make the information more easily available at the right time, but certainly the 'coolness' of the gadget and how well it sells to these dudes primarily depends on how easy it is to use.
Example Scenario 2: You need to make training to enable learners to be able to use a particular software application on their job. Your audience is technical and don't need to learn the basics of using such applications. They need to know what does your application do to make their job easy.
Solution:
Here goes...
Plan a training curriculum which would be a combination of:
Let's get real, this is a reality and thus I choose to differ in saying that we cannot choose one over the other and say there is a shift in the strategy. I would like to hear what everyone has to say here...
I recently read this post by Tony Karrer discussing the development of what we traditionally call pure courseware versus the creation of Reference Hybrids Shift in eLearning from Pure Courseware towards Reference Hybrids. Though posted in 2006, this post seems very relevant even today and I feel like I have a lot to say about the probable solution to the discussion that this course brought out.
Citing past experience
In one of my previous organization, our management was looking at buying a rapid elearning tool that would make the creation of courses faster and easier. Now thats the impression the general audience has about rapid elearning tools, and is also the obvious reason why they think that buying the tool will solve all their training problems. Exactly what the vendors would love you to believe when they sell their tool. But, I think it's time we start being more realistic and start looking at what it is that we really want, and not conclude on using rapid elearning tools without understanding the essence of what they are equipped to deliver. Another post by Tony - What is Rapid elearning? really brings out the reality and I suggest reading this to get a better understanding of rapid elearning.
So there after me and my team, who believed that a custom made course design could be used to deliver the same business goals managed to convince our management over time, that we could deliver what the tool promised and much better, as we already had the basic framework for a custom course template (in HTML, JavaScript and Flash) in place by then. Now that was a successful transaction there as our instructional designers were happy that they would continue have the opportunity to design interesting strategies that would enable achievement of the training objectives and also engage the learner. I do not mean to say the available rapid elearning tools cannot create engaging courses but there are issues when you do get down to a lot of specifics. Janet Clarey's post clarifies this point better .
What's the point I'm making here?
Now let's get to the point without digressing from the main topics that were discussed in Tony's posts. The bottomline is that we need to look at training from a more holistic point of view than just arguing about what is phased out and what isn't. The point is, that we started making traditional courseware at one time and it worked pretty well. But when we evaluated the courses, overtime we found that there were several gaps in spite of all the instructional design strategies that went into creating the courses. Then we started asking questions like why is this not working, what did we miss out on, is this kind of courseware not working? And then boom, it strikes us that we need to change the way we do training. Maybe the 'traditional' way is not working because learners just want on-the-job, just-in-time and on-demand training. We should be able to give learners what they want, when they want it, and in whichever format they want it. Then came the age where we started believing that mobile learning was the next big thing. But please let me know how effective mobile learning has been? I am really curious as to me, it seemed completely unrealistic to believe that people could learn how to do their job from a tiny screen on a handheld device! Maybe this is because I am a digital immigrant species and not a digital native. Please fill me in here.
What's the solution?
Now, let's get specific and categorize all the random thoughts that I listed above. We're talking about 'traditional' courseware versus reference hybrids like just-in-time and just enough learning. My answer to this though is to remove the 'versus' part and start looking at an entire training solution.
First let's set our goal. We have an audience that needs training on a particular topic. You need to study your audience profiles to be able to come to a consensus about what modes you need to deliver the training.
Example Scenario 1: If you are designing training for teens to learn about using a specific 'cool' gizmo, you would be missing the basic point if you think of making formal training online/computer based training for this. This kind of a situation demands what you call just enough and just in time.
Solution:
So we can provide the following information:
- Give a quick primer on the gadget and its capabilities.
- List the features that enable this.
- Cover the procedures to use the features.
Now what if the product is complex to use? Well then you need to put more effort and probably make the information more easily available at the right time, but certainly the 'coolness' of the gadget and how well it sells to these dudes primarily depends on how easy it is to use.
Example Scenario 2: You need to make training to enable learners to be able to use a particular software application on their job. Your audience is technical and don't need to learn the basics of using such applications. They need to know what does your application do to make their job easy.
Solution:
Here goes...
Plan a training curriculum which would be a combination of:
- Formal classroom or full fledged online training supported by relevant interactivities
- Hands on exercises using scenarios that would be relevant to their role
- Formal documentation including context sensitive help
Let's get real, this is a reality and thus I choose to differ in saying that we cannot choose one over the other and say there is a shift in the strategy. I would like to hear what everyone has to say here...
Hi Sreya
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. Reference Hybrids work really well when you are creating training material for software products. I have created many myself and I personally prefer reference hybrids.
However I have come to realize this:
Instructional Designing depends too much on the customer, the learner needs and requirements.
Sometimes you have to create traditional courses with periodic quizzes and the "Next" buttons, that learners access via a LMS.
You might have to do this for a variety of reasons. The customer might want it this way. The subject of the course might demand this and there can be umpteen other reasons.
You cannot do something because it is a new way of doing or the most efficient way of doing. The customer and the SME always have a major part in the process of creating an e-learning course.
What do you think?
Yes Rupa, I agree and that's the point I was trying to make here. Several times the customer does demand and expect certain 'traditional' things and we do it for them. Its a matter of mindset change too. As of today I can't influence my organization to change their overall strategy but hopefully it may change overtime.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments,
Sreya
Interesting and thought provoking post, Sreya. Keep blogging!
ReplyDeleteHI Sreya - I think that the holistic approach is essential. The hybrid / blended approach has a lot of supportive research behind it. I think you've taken a great approach.
ReplyDeleteThanks Janet, I think of this approach as something that will work well as we have very complex products and it takes a blend of all kinds to get someone up to speed with our products. But as I said above, it will take a while before people in my team/org start opening up to new ways of doing things.
ReplyDeleteYour comments are encouraging.
I totally agree here. It cannot be "Versus", it should be a perfect blend of both these approaches. Of course the percentage composition of each would vary depending on the "type of training" in picture. So blindly relying on quick tools is not a solution here. Of course unless "money" is the only goal and not the "training".
ReplyDeleteI would love to have quizzes and questions in a training like employee ethics/business conduct courses. I swear otherwise I'll sleep off half-way through the session. Where as I wouldn't require those when I take a technical course where my expectation in certain types would be "dude-fast-brush up rest-and-teach-me-to-the-point" and for certain courses, yes the traditional approach of "please-go-through-all-from-basics" works well.
I see the problem happens not only in the courseware design but also how the training is conducted. The training team should precisely understand the requirements of the mixed-target-audience. That's where the success of the training program is.