At first, “elearning” followed “instructional design” in a sad slope downward. But in the last couple of years, “elearning” has perked up again, while its friend “instructional design” continues its descent into obscurity.

Maybe fewer people are searching for “instructional design” because it’s no longer a new concept (”usability” suffered a similar decline). Or, possibly, fewer people are searching for “instructional design” because fewer people care about it.

Did “rapid” kill ADDIE?

Here’s what can happen to the ADDIE approach when we care more about speed than anything else.

1. Analysis: “The client wants a course, therefore the client needs a course.”

2. Design: “Let’s use the template we used for the widget course, but with a blue background.”

3. Development: “Clean up the client’s PowerPoint slides and add a Jeopardy quiz.”

4. Implementation: “Put it on the LMS.”

5. Evaluation: “Did everyone look at every screen?”

I’m not saying rapid tools are evil. You can use them to create powerful elearning. It’s rapid design that’s the culprit, because it’s not really instructional design. It’s just content presentation. We end up putting lipstick on a pig.

But ADDIE takes too long!

When we treat ADDIE as a step-by-step process, it’s inefficient. By the time we’ve created our 39-page cross-referenced design document, we could have delivered a prototype of the course and gotten feedback from the client and learners, as Sumeet Moghe points out in his description of an agile approach to elearning design.

It would also help if we let go of our obsession with looks. Unfortunately, a text-only branching scenario that profoundly changes your employees’ approach to complex sales won’t get an award—it won’t even be submitted. The award submission will be a glitzy “course”/slideshow with redundant narration, flying pie charts, and a game-show quiz that has little effect on people’s performance.

But what about the lemurs?

I’m not saying that the Google Trends chart proves that instructional design is getting short shrift in elearning. I posted the chart because it happens to be a visual expression of my concern. There could be just as much correlation between the two searches as there is between “elearning design” and “lemurs” (which, happily, shows no worrying trends):

The researchers used Camtasia Studio to create two presentations on information security. The audio narration was the same in both presentations. The visuals were the same, too, except one presentation used an average of 3.4 animations per slide to make bullet points, words, or images enter at different times. The other animation had static slides—the information was simply there.

After viewing the presentation, students answered a multiple-choice quiz. Students who saw the flying-bullet-points presentation scored 71.43%, while students who saw the more static version scored 81.98%, a statistically significant difference.

What does this mean?

To me, this suggests that flying bullet points are not only annoying and gratuitous, they’re so annoying and gratuitous that they distract from the content. This isn’t a surprise.

However, this doesn’t mean that all animation is bad. The published study doesn’t show the presentation, but the researchers’ multiple-choice quiz strongly suggests that they presented simple facts. Here’s a typical question from the quiz:

7. Most computer crime is attempted by:

1. Competitors
2. Employees
3. Outside hackers
4. Foreign governments

It looks like learners could have read a cheap and simple PDF to get the same facts, in which case I wonder why the information was delivered as a presentation at all.

Bigger concern: Why use elearning for this?

Too often, elearning is viewed as simply a way to deliver information, and it looks like the researcher’s presentation has that goal. But elearning’s strength is in its ability to challenge learners with realistic interactions that make them interpret and apply new information. Animation could have a role in such an interaction—for example, it might be needed to duplicate a process in the real world.

I wish the researchers had also tested a short, concise text document, because it looks like that’s all they really needed.

If we really just need to deliver information, we can send out an email or a link to an intranet page that presents the facts clearly and concisely. We can then use our elearning tool or LMS for the quiz, and we’ll be done in less than half the time it would have taken to craft a slick elearning module—plus we don’t have to give a second’s thought to whether we should make the bullet points fly.

Flashback: Like this topic? You might like these posts from previous years:

Is a course really the answer?
Common mistakes when writing multiple-choice questions

Small victories like these make me love to travel. Every day I move from clueless to confident as I tackle questions like, “How do I peel and eat this hardboiled egg using only this tiny spoon?”

I find the answers through experimentation and observation—there’s no one telling me what to do at every step. And as a result I love the learning I’ve done and want to learn more.

How can we help our learners feel the same sense of achievement?

1. Let them figure some of it out

Often, we tell our learners everything they need to know, and then test them on it.

“Here’s the correct way to present our product to a cost-conscious prospect,” we say. “Now answer these simple multiple-choice questions to prove that you’ve been conscious for the last five minutes.”

Instead, we can give the learner a few pointers and then put them in a realistic, challenging scenario.

For example, we could have an experienced salesperson offer some recommendations for dealing with cost-conscious prospects. Then we could put the learner at a fictional lunch table next to a penny-pinching but valuable prospect.

A branching scenario lets the learner try various approaches. The prospect’s reactions and a sale progress bar show the learner if they’re moving toward a sale, and if necessary, feedback provides more pointers. And through it all, the learner knows that the prospect could get up and walk away.

2. Let them risk failure

Without the risk of failure, success doesn’t mean much. And our failures are memorable teachers.

If someone had told me before I went to Barcelona, “Don’t touch the produce,” I would have been spared one of my more memorable lessons, helpfully provided by a horrified shop owner.

Importantly, my lesson also reinforced a bigger, more useful rule: “Watch the locals before acting.” I made a mistake that proves the usefulness of the rule, so I’m more likely to follow the rule in the future.

A realistic elearning scenario lets learners make the kinds of mistakes that prove the rule. The trick is to make sure learners don’t get frustrated or discouraged. One way is to offer optional, context-sensitive help.

3. To help, show instead of telling

My travel mantra is “Follow the locals.” If most of the locals turn left when they get off the train, I’ll turn left. In the same way, we can use models to guide learners to the right decisions.

For example, if the learner in our scenario makes a common mistake by criticizing our competitor’s product, we could have the sales progress bar show that the learner has lost ground. Then we could have a (real or fictional) experienced salesperson show in a flashback how they avoided that mistake with a similar prospect.

If the learner follows the model’s example, they get closer to the sale. If they continue to bash the competitor, the prospect walks. This is far more effective than simply telling learners, “Don’t criticize our competitors,” although we’ll want to include that point in a summary of the scenario.

4. Have them use real-world job aids

Another way to help learners succeed is to give them the job aids that they’ll have in real life. Every tourist needs a map, and every staff member needs a guide for a complex procedure, or a list of pointers to prepare for a challenge.

For example, the tips that we give the learner before their lunch with the prospect could be provided as the real “cheat sheet” that our sales people use in the field to prepare for challenging situations. This makes the scenario more realistic and encourages learners to continue using the aid in the real world.

No fancy software required

This kind of scenario could be produced using photos and a rapid development tool that supports branching. If your tool can’t keep track of a variable (the sales progress bar), you could instead display a simple positive, neutral, or negative indicator to show the learner how their decision has affected the likelihood of a sale.

What do you think? Is this too much trouble? It takes a little more time to design this kind of material. How can we convince our clients to give us that time?

• If you currently have Keynote 08, don’t upgrade.
• If you’re new to the Mac, you’ll get iWork 09 by default, which contains the unfortunate Keynote 09. You could buy iWork 08 through eBay or a similar outlet. Current prices appear to be $16-55.

Some posts in discussion forums suggest that you can export Keynote 09 slideshows as QuickTime files and then save those as Flash, but apparently you lose all interactivity, so there’s no point.

Shame on Apple for again removing useful features during an “upgrade.” iMovie recently suffered a similar fate. I don’t understand Apple’s reasoning at all.

Some more complex alternatives could be Adobe Captivate for Mac, which is looking for beta testers, and Techsmith’s Camtasia Studio for Mac, which is scheduled to be released in mid-2009.

(If your organization blocks YouTube, you might be able to watch the video here on BlipTV.)

This video introduced me to the world of roller coaster simulators, such as this inexpensive one for Mac and Windows. I unfortunately don’t have time to experiment with new software, but if you do, please let us know how it works for you in the comments.

Are there any other inexpensive ways to turn statistics into a first-person adventure?

At the start of an elearning project, your client will often give you more information than will be useful. Some of it will go into your elearning material, some will go into job aids, and some will get cut. Here’s one way to track what happens to your client’s favorite content.

1. Agree on the goal and activities.

Make sure the client and you agree on what the materials are supposed to accomplish and, therefore, what content is likely to be included. Action mapping can be handy for this.

I start the content-sorting process when we’ve agreed on a high-level outline that briefly describes each activity and suggests what information will be needed.

2. Copy the client’s content files.

I work from copies so I can mark them up. The originals go into an “originals” folder.

3. Choose a place to dump the relevant info.

Your client has probably given you several files in different formats. Often, you need to pull bits of content from all of these files. I put the information I’ve pulled into one document, either an action map or a Word file.

Action map: For mapping, I use Compendium, which lets you paste text, PowerPoint slides, PDFs, and web sites in the map. That way, I can link the raw content directly to the activity it will support. This makes it easy to locate the relevant information when I write the storyboard. Other mind mapping software also lets you include documents; if you have a favorite program, please recommend it in the comments section.

Word dump: If I’m not building a Compendium map, I put all the relevant content into one Word file.

4. Move the info into your content dump and color code it in the source doc.

Write summaries, take screenshots (on Windows, I use SnagIt), and copy and paste the relevant content into your action map or master Word dump.

When the source document is a Word file, I mark it up as I pull information out of it, highlighting text to show what I did with it. For example, you could use these colors:

Grey: Not used anywhere (course or job aids). I might add a comment to remind myself why I’m not using that content.

Green: Will be used somewhere in some form. This means I’ve copied and pasted this info into the action map or master Word file. I usually add a comment to remind myself where the information will be used, like “quick reference card” or “eavesdropping scenario.”

When I’m done, everything in the source file is marked either grey or green, and there are comments recording my decisions. Later on, if the client asks what I did with a specific bit of content in a particular file, I can open that file and answer immediately.

For PowerPoint decks, I often don’t mark the slides as I pull them, because it’s usually easy for me to remember what I’ve done with a slide.

5. Paste the pulled information where you’ll need it.

Paste the information in your action map or Word content dump in an order that makes sense to you. For example, if you’re writing a linear course, your Word content dump might follow the course organization.

As I paste, I usually add comments reminding myself where the information came from. If I’m using a Word doc, I also add headings to make it easy to group information by activity.

6. Identify missing or conflicting information.

Now that you have all related information in one place, it’s easy to see what’s missing or conflicting. Ask the subject matter expert (SME) for help by sending him or her specific questions (not your content dump). For example, you could send an email pointing out that Carol’s PPT said X, while the IT policy document said Y. Which is correct?

7. Write the storyboard and draft the job aids.

Write the storyboard and job aids, incorporating the client’s information in its most useful form. This usually isn’t a word-for-word copy of the original content.

For example, a paragraph that warns staff against sending account information over unsecured email could become a scenario in which someone sends an unsecured email and exposes a client’s account information. You might try to replace as much text as possible with an activity or scenario.

As you use information, mark it or (more satisfying) delete it from your map or content dump. You might also find that some of the information you pulled isn’t relevant after all. You might want to mark it as grey or otherwise record your decision in case the client asks about it.

8. Send the storyboard and job aids for review.

It’s a good idea to have the SME and other stakeholders review your storyboard and draft job aids before you develop anything further. Send them just the storyboard and job aid drafts. The marked-up source documents and content dump are just for your records.

I’ve gotten the best results by writing very specific SME questions directly in the storyboard and highlighting those questions in yellow. Ideally, the SME answers the question by typing right there in the document.

At the end of a project, I save both the marked-up source documents and the unmarked originals. If the client wants to update the elearning materials later on, it can be helpful to have a record of the decisions I made during the first round.

How do you keep track of details? Does your team have an official process in place?

The blueprint is an interactive job aid that helps anyone design lean, lively elearning. It can be used by one person or an entire team—including subject matter experts. And because it’s based on Action Mapping, the blueprint helps you create materials that improve business performance.

With the blueprint, you can:

• Create action-packed elearning with your existing tools
• Streamline your instructional design process
• Confidently make design decisions that are supported by learning research
• Tie your elearning to business strategy—show that you’re indispensable!

Worksheets and other aids help you immediately apply what you’re learning to your current project.

Get better results from subject matter experts

Want your SMEs and designers to work together more effectively? With a team license for the blueprint, they’ll all use the same process and follow the same recommendations.

For less than the cost of sending one person to an instructional design workshop, you can improve the skills of everyone on your team. And rather than sitting in a class, they’ll learn by doing, right on the job.

Curious? Find out more and take a tour of the blueprint here.

Unfortunately, the response required them to enter their account information at a fake website. Fortunately, the site was set up by their own employer. It was a test to see how many staff would fall for a phishing scheme.

Apparently, the test ended there. But the department could have turned the fake site into an interesting mini-lesson and used it to market their privacy course. Here’s one approach.

1. Separate the clueless from the savvy

We could give site visitors two choices: enter your private information to find out immediately if you get money, or be more cautious and learn more about the refund. By tracking the clicks, we’d get a sense of how gullible our employees are.

2. Provide feedback

Visitors who entered their info could be sent to a carefully-worded page that tells them that the site is fake. It would be important to do this gently to avoid appearing to say, “Idiot!” Sensitive humor might help.

The more cautious users who clicked “learn more” could get reinforcing feedback along the lines of “Great choice! You should never enter your account information in a site that…”

3. Highlight the suspicious bits

After the feedback, both types of users could then see a screen that highlights the elements of the email and web page that should have set off alarm bells. This screen could also link to the company’s course on electronic privacy, maybe by saying, “To learn more, see Staying Safe Online, a 20-minute course that…”

All of this would require a very light touch to avoid giving employees the impression that they have been tested, failed the test, and now have to take a course because they failed. Instead, the message should be, “This sort of stuff is tricky. Lots of people miss the tell-tale signs. There are many more risks out there, and to learn about them, you might like this course.”

I haven’t heard of anyone trying this, so maybe it’s too risky. What do you think? Would your organization ever try something like this?

Photo by radiant guy

The study compared three lessons about the same weather process. All lessons used the same illustrations but varied in the number of words.

The lesson with the fewest words resulted in the most learning.

Read the original publication (PDF) from the Journal of Educational Psychology, or see the summary on pp. 109-115 of Efficiency in Learning by Ruth Clark, Frank Nguyen, and John Sweller.