When designing technical training, face to face training experience is often the preferred method, but this isn’t always possible and with advances in technology, it may not always be the best approach. The challenge becomes, how do you take all of the information normally conveyed during face to face instruction and map the content to the right modality to get the same outcomes, including when to use hands on experience? Sheri Weppel, Director of Training and eLearning Development, addresses this challenge in our latest video: Rapid Technical Design.

Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs) have been around for a while now and perhaps crested their peak on the “hype curve” with the “Year of the MOOC” as declared in 2013 by The New York Times. Yet MOOCs, or some variation of them, seem to be here to stay.

MOOCs have spawned a range of variants, including:

• BOOCs (Big Open Online Courses), which are similar to MOOCs but are limited to a smaller amount of students, typically 50.
• SPOCs (Small Private Online Courses), which are similar to BOOCs in that the class sizes are limited, but the teacher-student interactions are more closely modeled after traditional classroom interactions. SPOCs typically use the “flipped classroom” model.
• DOCCs (Distributed Online Collaborative Courses) are courses in which the same core course material is distributed to students at multiple institutions, but the exact administration of the material can vary. Students can also engage with each other across institutions via the online component.

At least two of the aforementioned variations specifically take the “M” (or Massive) out of the MOOC, and all models rely heavily on participation and collaboration among the participants.

Does a move away from “massive” place more focus on “meaningful”?

As the dust begins to settle around MOOCs, their efficacy is coming under increasing scrutiny, particularly by those in the academic field.

A September 2015 study by Patrick Lowenthal and Charles Hodges set out to hold MOOCs up against some of the same quality standards that traditional online courses are expected to meet. The study found that none of the MOOCs in the sample did particularly well in the standard surrounding learning objectives. The authors go on to point out they concluded that the failure of meeting the learning objectives standard is more about transparency than whether the course was designed around clear learning objectives. Finally, the study concludes that MOOCs have the potential to be high-quality online courses, at least in terms of course design. The authors state that high-quality (designed) online courses do not simply happen on their own; rather, they are the result of the intentional application of a systematic process of design and evaluation with a goal of improvement over time.

If the maturation of MOOCs is indeed moving from massive to meaningful, this might be evidenced in the rise of more collaborative and social learning platforms and experiences.

Whether it be through ad-hoc learning sessions on platforms like Jabber, Yammer, or Tribe, or more structured collaboration and curation systems such as Degreed or Learnify, knowledge transfer is becoming more and more learner-centered and driven; MOOCs have likely had a significant impact on this democratization of learning.

By opening up learning experiences to the masses, MOOCs have to some degree separated the wheat from the chaff in filtering out truly engaged and involved learners from the “window shoppers,” thus driving the move from “massive” to “meaningful.” So if the next generation of MOOCs do in fact evolve to “Meaningful Open Online Courses,” then they continue to make their mark in the learning ecosphere.

What have your experiences with MOOCs been? Massive? Meaningful? Mysterious? Please comment below and let’s continue the discussion!

As we enter the New Year, I keep having the feeling that all the shiny, brand new objects in the learning world are just today’s reinterpretation of all the right stuff that we’ve been doing all along. A cynic would say that somebody else is getting all kinds of credit for inventing something that really isn’t new, but in the spirit of the New Year, I think I’ll choose to be excited that I can bring so much existing life experience to these “brand new” trends.

Like many training professionals, a lot of my work has to do with the implementation of new business processes and systems. My first SAP implementation was back in 1994, more than 20 years ago, and in between I’ve created end user training for every flavor of ERP system as well as a wide range of custom software solutions. And while you may think the crazy challenges of this type of work would be getting old by now, I think, in fact, this might just be the most exciting time ever for the kind of work I do.

Over these 20 years, the tools and technology available for learning have evolved tremendously, and in some ways, so have the needs of our learners. Most of them have multiple systems they use to do their jobs on any given day, and these systems are constantly evolving—especially the “cloud” varieties. So while basic learning needs in some ways remain the same—“Tell me what I need to do to do my job, show me how to do it, let me practice, and help me when I get stuck”—employees need agile and effective ways of learning now more than ever.

One of the biggest challenges with this type of training has always been how to provide learners with realistic, hands-on practice on the systems they will use. For many years, our recommendation was to provide a training database with realistic custom data for use in classroom training. Nothing can beat getting in and playing around with the system in a safe practice environment with support from an instructor.

Some years ago, however, the availability of various simulation tools convinced many organizations to switch from live system exercises to system simulations. The argument for using simulations makes sense on a number of levels: Simulations eliminate the need for creation of massive amounts of data, the mechanics of training delivery are greatly simplified, and there is no need to maintain the training database over time. Easy peasy, right?

But I’ve been noticing a funny thing happening over the last six months or so. Organizations are starting to realize that simulations aren’t the silver bullet they once appeared to be. They are realizing that live system exercises offer a lot more value than they thought. Simulations are, in most cases, just a pale imitation of the system employees will be using. Even simulations built with great foresight don’t teach complex transactions well. And most importantly, simulations don’t allow us to experience failure or learn how to recover from it. Yes, there are some pretty sophisticated simulation tools out there, but it takes a lot of effort to create and maintain those simulations, and you still don’t get the richness of a real training database.

So is it time to go back to live system exercises? As always, the answer is a resounding, “It depends.” It depends on the learners. It depends on the processes and systems. It depends on your organization’s learning culture. And most likely, if you are dealing with a broad ERP implementation or a range of systems, you will find a different answer for each learning need. So as you try to figure out the right solution for your specific situation, I would encourage you to consider the following questions:

• Should instructor-led training (ILT) be a part of your learning solution? These days, many topics can be covered in eLearning or just-in-time video microlearning. For highly conceptual process training or simple task training, you may not need ILT. But for teaching employees complex tasks in a new system, I would still argue that the best approach is traditional ILT.
• If ILT is the preferred solution, is the learning audience centralized or distributed (so as to require virtual ILT [VILT])? If you need to conduct VILT, facilitating hands-on exercises in a training database can be a real challenge. Make sure your instructors are fully trained on how to conduct exercises using your VILT technology and be sure to have a fallback plan if they start getting in trouble. That plan could include local help resources, the use of simulations as a backup, the ability to take over a learner’s laptop, or even switching to “demo only” mode.
• Is hands-on practice required for each system task? Often, it is possible to simplify training database requirements by saving hands-on exercises for the most complex tasks. Simple tasks can then be taught through instructor demonstrations, job aids, or simple simulations. The added benefit of this approach is that you may find you can segregate your content to allow some of the ILT to be taught as eLearning, with smaller, more focused ILT classes for the complex content.
• Will the exercise solution you have in mind be sustainable over time (and does that matter)? Truth be told, this isn’t just a question related to exercises. It’s a question for your entire learning solution. If you decide to use live exercises, you will need to consider how your training database will be kept in sync with the production system. But equally important (and often forgotten), if you are going to use simulations, how will they be maintained as the system and business processes evolve? (Especially with cloud solutions!) And what are the mechanics for how new employees will use the learning solution to get up to speed? Will classes be taught? Will super users work with them one on one? Think through the future before committing to a solution.

These are just a few of the questions you should be thinking about, but they will get you started. Best of luck in applying this “new” learning trend in 2016!

The buzz: Teach me tonight.

If your company’s workforce spans the generational gamut from Baby Boomers to recent college alumni born after the Boomers graduated, it’s a good thing! Talent from any source cannot be overlooked if you want to compete in the digital world. But how do you efficiently create or adopt the training tools and techniques that speak to each employee’s individual learning style? Are there new approaches you haven’t considered?

Matt Donovan, Vice President of Learning Solutions at GP Strategies sat down as a panelist on the SAP Radio show Coffee Break with Game-Changers. The conversation, facilitated by Bonnie Graham, focused on simplifying the future of learning and covered topics such as:

• Brain-based learning
• Neuroscience
• Localization
• Gamification
• The future of learning

If you missed the live show, a recording is now available through VoiceAmerica.

As we enter the New Year, I keep having the feeling that all the shiny, brand new objects in the learning world are just today’s reinterpretation of all the right stuff that we’ve been doing all along. A cynic would say that somebody else is getting all kinds of credit for inventing something that really isn’t new, but in the spirit of the New Year, I think I’ll choose to be excited that I can bring so much existing life experience to these “brand new” trends.

There’s an article in this month’s CLO magazine about the buzz around “flipped” classrooms. Author Bob Mosher rightly points out that classrooms aren’t going away any time soon and they need help. He discusses three ways to flip classroom learning: before, during, and after the classroom experience. What amuses me is the third way: flipping after the classroom experience. Mosher explains that this most misunderstood approach “uses the classroom to teach only the critical skills needed to survive, and tools such as performance support, along with methods such as coaching and mentoring.” And guess what? It works! How do I know? We’ve been using this approach for 20 years to significantly reduce classroom training time while increasing learners’ ability to produce critical job outcomes. Nice to know it now has a name!

So what have I learned over 20 years about making this misunderstood flipping approach work?

• An effective approach to prioritizing content is key. The assumption with the flipped approach is that much of the learning will occur back on the job or as learners complete a blended learning journey following class. But just how do you decide what should be covered in the classroom? We use a structured approach to prioritize content based on required job outcomes and the nature of the tasks performed to complete those outcomes. How complex are they, how critical are they, what happens if they are done wrong, and how different is this from how things were done before? We also make sure that from an instructional design perspective, our classroom training enables learners to be successful with critical tasks on day one while providing them with a structured approach for learning more back on the job. This concept of a learning journey is an important element of the flipped approach.
• Design of the solution must support sustainment. Many organizations invest significant funds in developing learning and performance support content that is good for “go live” but then gathers dust on the shelf. How many of us know that there is help out on the network somewhere, but have no idea how to get to it and whether it is up to date? For the flipped classroom, or any learning solution, to work, it must be sustainable: easily accessed, maintained, and used by new learners. This long-term usage must be taken into account from initial design.
• If you don’t introduce and use performance support in the classroom, it won’t be used on the job. An important aspect of a flipped classroom is the use of performance support (help) back on the job to continue learning. One of my first lessons about performance support is that if you don’t introduce it in the classroom and help learners see how useful it is, they will never access it back on the job. If you are trying to teach learners to fish, you must show them how to use the fishing rod. You would be surprised how often this simple rule is ignored.
• Nothing can replace hands-on practice in a safe environment—especially when you are talking about learning new processes and systems. Much of the work I do is related to teaching people to use new technology, and many of my clients are very keen to replace live system exercises with system simulations. While simulations make things much easier from a technical perspective (no need for a training database), very few provide a rich experience to learners. Part of learning is learning how to fail and recover, and simulations give a false sense of security about that. Hands-on practice with support from an instructor is one of the very best ways to use classroom time.
• Follow-up discussion and support are critical. Because so much learning in this flipped approach occurs back on the job, it is critical to provide a means for learners to get questions answered as they learn. There are many ways of providing this support—formal coaching and mentoring, an online community of practice, informal follow up sessions, or super user programs—but the key is that communication between the learner and those teaching must be two-way. Adoption will not happen if learners become frustrated.

Best of luck in applying this “new” learning trend and Happy New Year!

Gamification has such a buzz in the industry, yet it is still very misunderstood. Some feel that gamification means making the entire learning experience a game with portals and avatars and scores. Others are implementing gamification on a smaller scale, creating game-based assessments. What does gamification mean to you, and which techniques should we employ and when?

I recently presented on these questions during a recent webinar, which is part of GP Strategies’ Learning Trends Series for 2016, focusing on using:

1. Portal-based gamification for motivation
2. Game-based solutions to communicate a message
3. Mini games to enhance retention and transfer

If you missed the webinar, a recording is now available. But if you’re looking for the abbreviated version, the following is a quick look at some of the key takeaways:

1. Remember that you don’t have to go “all in” on gamification. Try it out in different ways to see what works in your organization.
2. A pilot is a great way to see how gamification could benefit your organization. Make sure you pick a wide population to get a good representative sample.
3. Finally, there is a range to gamification—but it’s not for everyone and that’s OK! Consider other tools like coaching, on-the-job training, and other modalities instead.

After the presentation, a number of questions came up, and while we were able to address many of them, we weren’t able to get to all of them due to time. Below are those questions and my best answers. This is an ongoing conversation, so I encourage you to keep the questions coming in via the comments section at the bottom of this page.

Q: Can you explain more about “reducing option C” when referring to assessment strategies?

A: That’s the old standard approach that, at times, we forget to mix up the answers when we design multiple-choice questions and make all the answers to the questions C. Using gaming makes the experience feel less like a quiz and gives the learner an opportunity to think more clearly.

Q: Do you find certain generations/demographics are more open to gamification than others?

A: Yes and no. The younger generation definitely leans more towards gamification, but that’s not inclusive of every younger employee you may have. Salesforces also tend to lean towards gamification as well, but again, not the entire salesforce. It’s important to remember that all our learners are unique, and we need to consider a broad learner need.

Q: What are the best development gamification tools available for learning designers?

A: You can actually do an amazing job with mini games in Articulate Storyline. Adding a gaming engine behind the scenes amplifies the experience. Of course, you can also use tools like Unity or Flash for game development.

Q: Are there any easy-to-use authoring tools that you recommend to create the games?

A: Remember that behind the scenes, a game is just multiple choice. It’s all in your approach. Articulate Storyline would do a great job; it’s the creativity you need to bring to the table to make the magic happen.

Q: Younger audiences work well with gamification, but are there any conditions (kinds of games, mini games as opposed to portals, etc.) where older audiences particularly thrive with gamification?

A: For older audiences, the key is keep it short, simple, and relevant. If it gets too complicated to navigate or succeed at, they will lose patience (for the record, this also applies to members of the younger generations as well).

Q: What techniques do you recommend we use to know the audience, and what kinds of things are you looking for in your audience analysis?

A: A survey is always a good way to learn more about your audience. Find out things like what their hobbies are, what’s common in a region, or other anecdotal information. Leverage that information to craft training that will appeal to the population.

Q: Gamification is a very broad category—how would you define it?

A: Gamification, to me, is when you are applying badging and portalization of a learning experience. Unfortunately, that has been used as a sweeping description for anything related to gaming for instruction. Gaming for instruction includes adding gaming qualities to learning or using mini games as assessments.

Q: Is there a rule of thumb for maximum length of time a game should be?

A: It really depends on the game. You can have a series of levels in which a game could take up to an hour and be taken at different times throughout the year. Each level or mini game should be a maximum of 5–7 minutes.

Q: Do you find certain generations/demographics are more open to gamification than others?

A: Actually, no. I think stereotypically there are generalizations made, but there are exceptions to those rules. Gaming is a personal preference, and while younger generations may have more individuals who enjoy gaming, every young person does not fall into that category.

Join us for the next sessions in our Learning Trends 2016 Series:

Neuroscience of Learning: Incorporating Evidence-Based Practices Into Your Learning Solutions

Augmented Learning

Using Beacon Technology to Contextualize mLearning

How to Take Advantage of Learning Technology Trends in 2016

As we close in on a holiday that promises frightful costumes and spooky experiences, there’s no shame in admitting to be scared of things. That’s the spirit of Halloween, and it’s part of the fun. Most people spend money to scare others or to be scared! To honor this frightening tradition, I want to address a situation in the talent management world that often causes fear and concern. It is the idea of life sciences clients with a validated learning management system (LMS) migrating from an on-premise system to a SaaS environment. The idea of handing your system over to the cloud can be as worrisome as entering a haunted house. You have no idea whether the path ahead will be safe and smooth sailing or if it will give you tremors and nightmares. What follow, presented trick-or-treat style, are some of the common concerns that companies have when they consider moving their validated LMS to SaaS and how these concerns are alleviated by a SaaS product vendor.

Validation as discussed here, by definition, is establishing documented evidence that provides a high degree of assurance that a specific system will consistently produce a product meeting predetermined specifications and quality attributes. More specific requirements for validation are called out in the FDA Title 21 CFR 11 as well as the EU GMP Annex 11. However, a simplified view of validation activities follows the progression of Plan (“What do we plan to do?”), Execute (“How will we do it?”), and Verify (“How can we prove we did it?”).

At a high level, implementations and migrations subject to validation controls must produce a validation plan; user and functional requirements; installation and test procedures (installation, operational, and performance qualifications); and summary reporting. In addition, these implementations are subject to long-term change controls that ensure the documents remain in sync with long-term configuration changes.

Trick #1: An initial concern is often related to installation qualification (IQ). When moving an on-premise LMS to SaaS, installation is no longer managed in-house and the company’s IT department lacks visibility to the infrastructure. Also SaaS vendors may not provide IQ documentation in the exact form expected by the company’s QA groups, and some information is private for security/proprietary reasons and cannot even be shared.

Treat: In a SaaS environment, the process for configuration and verifying the infrastructure can be managed via vendor audits and by reference to vendor documentation. Your validation plan can call out these activities and define processes for long-term verification (e.g., periodic audits). Additionally, it is the QA group’s right to audit the vendor’s hosting facility as well; this ensures that the hosting operations follow the documented change processes. Client provisioning (launching or upgrading a new application) becomes a verification step rather than recording the explicit steps for installation/provisioning, and it verifies that the core system requirements have been met post-provisioning. Meanwhile, any configuration steps performed by your team once the environment is provisioned can be documented in the traditional IQ form.

Trick #2: Not managing the change control process in-house keeps companies wanting to host the LMS themselves. In a SaaS environment, the QA groups lack visibility into what changed, such as infrastructure changes, new product functionality, and configuration changes made by the customer. Documents are constantly requiring updates to keep up with the changes.

Treat: When migrating to SaaS, one mitigation will be ensuring that the product vendor provides documentation for each release. This is something that should be asked prior to selecting the SaaS vendor. It is important to work with a vendor that limits changes to regular intervals and provides full notice of the application changes far in advance of the deployment. When these application notes are released, they can be assessed by your team against the core application requirements. Configuration changes remain tracked by the customer, but with proper processes, governance, and administrative controls, this can be easily managed.

Trick #3: The rapid release cycle for SaaS products can be difficult to keep up with. QA groups lack visibility into the upcoming changes that will affect functionality, so there is unrest each time a new release is announced. Additionally, in pharmaceuticals, one year is not a long time, and it is difficult to keep up with the system documentation impacts. All changes to system capabilities that affect requirements or regression tests must be updated; there is a constant testing cycle.

Treat: SaaS products supporting validated customers generally offer a slower schedule for rollouts. Some can be as frequent as quarterly with the clients having the option to choose which releases to accept or skip, and some releases are annual with the requirement to upgrade to the latest release. Flexibility and extra time exist for validated clients. There is also the opportunity to get an advanced look into functionality in both sandbox and QA environments so that proper planning can be done. A strategy that a company can follow is using limited versus full regression test sets, with a risk-based assessment determining the degree of regression required. Lastly, contracting with a support organization or third party consultant with validation experience can relieve some of the burden of the validation process. These organizations keep up with application changes on behalf of multiple clients, so they have experience with upcoming changes that are most likely to cause issues with validated systems.

If your organization is contemplating a migration to a validated SaaS environment but has too many unmitigated fears, take some time to research your preferred SaaS vendors and see how they match up to the treats described above. With the right product vendor, you can rest assured that no ghosts, goblins, or ghouls will be out to get you if you move forward with a migration to a validated SaaS LMS, and your end results will include plenty of treats, not tricks.

The concept of Agile is appealing in a training initiative, but not always successful in implementation. How can we be more agile in our project management techniques to increase the speed of the design and development process while protecting our timeline and budget? I recently presented a webcast with ATD (Association for Talent Development) focused on a modified Agile model and the project management tools and techniques needed to be successful.

Training professionals are frequently asked, “What kind of return will I see on my investment?” when beginning a training project. While training is typically the last element in place before go live, it bears the brunt of ROI responsibility. However, careful planning must be in place to ensure that non-training related decisions that will impact ROI are considered in the earlier stages of the project.

During the recent GP Strategies’ 20-minute webinar, ROI: What Investment Are You Really Measuring? I reviewed the INVEST model used to ask the right questions throughout the project life cycle to set your training initiatives up for success, including:

• Infrastructure: Consider how your INFRASTRUCTURE will affect your outcomes and overall project success.
• Networking: As you are changing your process ensure all parties are NETWORKING to manage the change.
• Voice of the Customer: The VOICE OF THE CUSTOMER includes your end customer and your employees. Their satisfaction is key.
• Engagement: Examine how your training constraints may be impacting learners’ ENGAGEMENT.
• Stability: Ensure you are planning for system or change STABILITY to prevent inaccuracies and frustrations.
• Training: Plan ahead for your TRAINING needs to ensure enough time and budget is allocated.

After the presentation, a number of questions came up, and while we were able to address many of them, we weren’t able to get to all of them due to time. Below are those questions and my best answers. This is an ongoing conversation so I encourage you to keep the questions coming in via the comments section at the bottom of this page or join the conversation on LinkedIn and Twitter.

Q: There was a lot of information presented. What is one tip that you have for getting the most out of ROI?

A: Planning. It is all about planning in advance to make sure that you have considered your options from a training perspective. What can you get included as a package from a vendor so that you don’t have to develop training from scratch?  What can they provide you that is translated? Do they maintain their content? Answers to these questions can help you plan ahead for a successful training deployment.

Q: What has been the biggest stumbling block for ROI?

A: Maintenance of content and translations go hand in hand. If the content isn’t maintained and current, then it will be ineffective for learners. If they don’t speak English and the content isn’t translated you will not see the return you are looking for. Careful audience analysis and a maintenance place are secrets to your success. 

Q: When should we start planning for training ROI?

A: Now! All kidding aside, training should be considered at the project kick-off meeting. While training doesn’t need to participate in all meetings, they should have a seat at the key stakeholder table to ensure they are represented and can bring questions and concerns to the group while they can still be resolved. 

Q: How can gaming be used for ROI?

A: Gaming is a great activity to use at 30-60-90 days post deployment to gather feedback. This could be on satisfaction, comprehension and skill acquisition. It’s a great way to engage your audience, letting them know they are still supported while gathering your data at the same time.