It is usually up to the training department to figure out how new employees will be trained. There are many training strategies to choose from when building instruction. Do we create an e-learning lesson, classroom-based training, or on-the-job training? In this blog, I am going to discuss on-the -job training (OJT) with a focus on the pros and cons of this strategy, how we can minimize the risks, and maximize the benefits.

First, let’s discuss three benefits:

1. Employees can practice their job tasks in the real work environment.
2. Employees get individual attention.
3. Managers get immediate feedback regarding the employee’s progress.

Now, let’s examine three risks:

1. Employees could receive outdated or incorrect information from the trainer.
2. Training tools and equipment must be made available during the training session which may include extra costs.
3. The trainer must put their additional job tasks on hold while they train others.

So, if you think an on-the-job training program makes sense given your training situation, then it is important to prevent or minimize the risks to ensure overall training success. Here are some tips to help you minimize or prevent the three risks listed above:

Tip for risk #1

Write an extremely detailed task analysis on every task that comes with someone’s job to use as a set of job standards to teach from. Be sure to have a subject-matter expert review all of your task analyses for accuracy and also be sure to test each analysis with a novice learner before you use it for real. This way, whether one person or multiple people do the training, standardization will occur and accuracy will be ensured (provided the trainer(s) adhere to the standards!).

Tip for risk #2

If on-the-job training becomes the preferred method at your company, the extra costs up-front for equipment and tools could save money in design and development costs. If it is not feasible to purchase equipment for training-only purposes then perhaps you could use equipment available from an employee who’s on vacation or the trainer can use his/her own equipment for the training session.

Tip for risk #3

This “con” cannot really be prevented but it does not have to be seen as a negative situation. I like to see it as an investment more than a loss in productivity on the part of the trainer. Presumably, on-the-job training was chosen as the most effective strategy; given that choice, the employee(s) receiving the training should not need as much extra help from the trainer once the training period ends because the training was closest to the actual job conditions in the first place.

Certainly there are more advantages and risks associated with on-the-job training than what I have talked about in this blog so what comments do you have about OJT?

Lynne

It is important as designers and deliverers of training to consider and anticipate that our learners will fit into any one of these four stages. It is also important for us as course leaders to be able to recognize the emotional impact that each stage has on the learner and consider what can be done to assist the learner in that stage.

The following are the four stages of learning:

Stage 1: The Novice/Unconscious Incompetence

Often learners display excitement and enthusiasm in this stage because they don’t know that they don’t know. As my friend anticipated her first guitar lesson, she shared how excited she was and, because she was an accomplished pianist, she admittedly thought the technique for playing the guitar would be easy to grasp. We often find in our classes for beginners that they are the most enthusiastic and many times the most fearful. We might also find that they may think they know more than they really do. It is important to engage and harness their enthusiasm so they can learn the basics in this stage.

Stage 2: The Apprentice/Conscious Incompetence

In this stage the learners know they don’t know. This is where they recognize that they are out of their comfort zone because the skill to be learned may be more difficult than anticipated. It is in this stage that the learner may want to give up. It is important in this stage to build confidence with continued mentoring and coaching. Learners also need vehicles to show they are making progress. My friend shared that after a few lessons, she was growing impatient. She quickly realized that learning the guitar was not the same as playing the piano and she was growing frustrated. Fortunately she has a good teacher who offered her solid instruction and much needed encouragement in this stage.

Stage 3: The Journeymen/ Conscious Competence

Here, the learners know they know. With consistent practice and feedback the learners usually experience different levels of success. It is not uncommon for there to be some level of frustration because they are still conscious that they must concentrate and pay attention to performing the skill correctly; however, in time, and through trial and error, the practice becomes less challenging. My friend realizes that it may be a while before she performs in concert. She is still learning the scales that are very different from learning the scales on the piano. Patience and practice will eventually move her to the stage of mastery.

Stage 4: The Master/Unconscious Competence

In this stage of learning, the learners don’t know they know. The learner has such mastery of the skill(s) that it becomes automatic. They no longer have to think about it; it becomes effortless. This is where the learner may experience magical moments because they feel intuitive, creative, and think outside of the box; however, it is also at this stage where major mistakes can occur because there is a tendency to take risks and short cuts.

Learners in this stage are often the most challenging to work with. They can easily become bored and can also offer resistance to change and new ideas. It is important to provide opportunities for them to mentor and coach others. My friend has not yet mastered the guitar; however she is a master on the piano. It is natural that as adult learners we can be a novice in one skill and a master in another. We are constantly moving throughout the four stages at any given time in our lives.

I once heard the saying, “We are all rookies at different points of the season.” Recognizing the stages that our learners are in at any point in their “season,” can help us, as training professionals, to make informed choices to better meet the learners’ needs. We cover this topic in much more detail in our course, How Adults Learn. Hopefully we will see you there!

Linda

So, what’s a designer to do? The key is simple. For successful design, we must break everything down, whether it is a concept like leadership or an interpersonal skill like listening, into tasks. In our design workshops we call this process writing a task listing. A task is something that results in a product or service. Many times when I teach design some learners give me that “deer in the headlights” look when I begin to describe the process of writing a task listing; they cannot make the connection between writing a task listing with what they teach. They think about their leadership training or their communication skills training and think to themselves, “How do I write a task listing around this?”

Well fear not; I have the solution for you. Use my magic fill-in-the-blank Task Listing Conversion Question. The question is this: “What do you want the perfect _________ to do?”

Simply fill in the blank with your vague topic or interpersonal skill and ask yourself or someone else the question. Using our leadership training as an example, the question you would ask would be, “What do you want the perfect leader to do?” If we analyze an interpersonal skill like active listening, the question would be, “What do you want the perfect listener to do?” Get the idea? People do things on their jobs so we must use this conversion question to find out what successful leaders and listeners do in order to design relevant training around it!

You can either use the question on your own while working on writing your task listing or you may need to have a meeting with the person requesting the training and ask them the magic question. Only then can you both break down the goal of the training into specific, measureable tasks that can be taught, practiced, and tested to help employees improve their performance on the job.

The bottom line is this. We must break everything down into tasks in order to build our course content. Otherwise, we risk teaching employees things they do not need to know, things they already know, or things that do not relate to their job. We also risk teaching things to employees that do not meet the requesting manager’s expectations.

Try using my magic Task Listing Conversion Question and let me know how it works for you!

Lynne

A big mystery that seems to baffle and perplex many in corporate and organizational training is determining the exact amount of days or hours required to design training.

While facilitating Langevin courses, I often get asked questions similar to this one: “Jeff I have to design a one-day ethics course. How long should that take?”

Just as I’m unable to give a solid answer regarding the truth of a supposed dinosaur-like creature lurking the depths of a Scottish lake, it’s usually not possible to give an exact number of days or hours to instructional design time either.

Still, the mystery lingers on—and rightly so, as most instructional design projects always have a deadline and there’s usually a shortage of design time.To help demystify the design time dilemma, Langevin Learning Services has some suggested design time ratios that could prove helpful with your project planning; however, before I suggest our ratios, it’s important to note a few criteria.

When it comes to calculating design time for Instructor-led Training (ILT), it’s usually done so in increments of days. When calculating design time for e-learning, however, it’s typically done using hour increments.

Also, the numbers that you’ll see below are not reflective of the time it takes a certain number of people to work on any given task. They are simply suggested time frames regarding how long it takes to design a course, following a solid instructional systems design model from start to finish.

Design Time: Ratios and Considerations

Based on our own independent research and professional experience, we find there is a 25-60 to 1 ratio when designing ILT. In other words, for one day of instruction, it’s likely to take 25 days of design time on the low end and 60 days of design time on the high end. On average, it usually takes about 45 days to design a one-day course.

When designing e-learning, we find that it’s about a 75-500 to 1 ratio, meaning, for a one hour WBT/CBT tutorial, it’s likely to take 75 hours of design time on the low end and 500 hours of design time on the high end. On average, it usually takes about 290 hours to design a 1-hour WBT/CBT module.

Keep in mind there are various factors that affect the time required to design training; these will need to be considered, too. These factors are the likely reasons for the differing amounts of days/hours on the low end of the scale versus the high end of the scale.

Content: the degree of complexity

The complexity of your content will certainly affect your design time. Let’s say you are designing training that teaches the tasks of repairing a model train. For that course, your instructional design time is going to be much shorter than the design time required when designing training that teaches the tasks of repairing a railway locomotive.

Design experience of both the designer(s) and subject-matter expert(s)

As with most things, if someone has expertise or experience in a particular area, they can usually complete their duties faster. If one is new, there is a normal learning curve which can slow down the process. Simply put, experienced designers can usually crank out courses faster than inexperienced designers.

Design: special requirements or degree of sophistication

I briefly worked in the Corporate Education Department of a healthcare company. The majority of our training was designed for our internal clients as e-learning. When those clients approached the instructional design staff with tight and often unreasonable deadlines, in turn, they usually got what we jokingly referred to as “Electronic Page Turners.” Sadly, the degree of sophistication was nothing more than a PowerPoint deck downloaded as an e-learning course on our LMS.

However, if we were given ample design time, we were usually able to design e-learning courses that had all the bells and whistles that our clients wanted (e.g. animation, discussion boards, streaming video, virtual coaches, etc.) In order to design e-learning that is that sophisticated and robust, it takes time! And believe me it took lots of negotiation and bargaining to get the substantial instructional design time we needed.

Documentation: availability and completeness

To explain this factor, I’ll use the analogy of cooking a meal. When cooking a meal, if you have recipes on hand, a well-stocked refrigerator and cupboard, as well as the proper utensils and cookware, that meal will be on the table pretty quickly. Conversely, if you have to search the internet for recipes, travel to the grocery store for ingredients, and borrow pots and pans from your neighbor, it will take a lot longer to prepare that meal.

The same holds true for instructional design projects. If your documentation such as task analysis, design templates, and standard operating procedures are available, current and complete, the design process can usually be sped up; however, if those things have to be developed or updated, it will likely add extra days or hours to your design time.

Hopefully these design time ratios and various design factors will give you some information to consider, as well as help you effectively plan your instructional design projects. Best of luck!

Jeff

Since SMEs are experts in their job and we trainers may not be, challenges sometimes surface during our meetings with them. Perhaps rethinking the meaning for the acronym “SME” may help you work with them more effectively: Some More Education! Sometimes we need to educate SMEs regarding their role is in the design process in order for our interviews to run more smoothly.

In this blog I am going to identify some common challenges when working with SMEs and give you some tips to overcome them.

Common Issues

• SMEs sometimes do not have the time to help us.
• SMEs sometimes struggle with communicating clearly and in simple terms because they forget that we do not know what they know.
• SMEs sometimes are reluctant to share key information with us.

What can we do when facing these challenges? Unfortunately we cannot run for the exits when these issues come up; we do need to develop and maintain positive working relationships with these important people. If we do not, the technical accuracy, breadth, and depth of our courses could be in jeopardy.

Best Practices

Here are some best practices I recommend:

Time Challenge Tips

• Bring a specific written agenda to the meeting to help both of you stay on track and within the time constraints.
• Show the SME a sample task analysis to educate him/her how his/her knowledge will help you write the course content.

Communication Challenge Tips

• Explain that you will be designing the course content for beginners.
• Pause where necessary if you do not understand something and ask him/her to explain things in simpler terms, if possible.
• Paraphrase what the SME says to you periodically to ensure complete understanding.

Reluctance to Share Tips

• Educate both the SME and his/her manager on the importance of his/her help in designing accurate course content for future employees.
• Show the SME the finished course materials he/she helped you develop and give him/her credit both verbally and in writing. Make sure his/her manager knows how helpful he/she was, too.
• Invite him/her to share his/her knowledge with new employees during your training sessions, and be sure to treat him/her to lunch!

Hopefully, these tips will help you when working with SMEs. Remember, with Some More Education you can build strong alliances with SMEs. This is important to your success as you will need their help repeatedly as course content is updated over time.

What tips can you share to help others work with SMEs more effectively?

Lynne

How Can We Tell If Our Virtual Classroom Training Worked?

The short answer is a question. If training is about skills and knowledge used in the workplace with a goal of performance improvement, how can we tell if any training worked? One model that has been around for more than fifty years is the Kirkpatrick model. The four levels that are pretty well accepted are:

• Level 1 – Reaction of the learner to the training or Confidence of the learner in their ability to perform the task
• Level 2 – Learning in the classroom
• Level 3 – Performance back on the job
• Level 4 – Organizational impact or Return on Investment

These same four levels apply to training by virtual classroom. Let’s take a look at how this model might be applied to a virtual classroom session.

Just to illustrate, I’ll take a hypothetical class delivered by virtual classroom addressing how to better use an email application. Let’s say the need addressed by the class is that a significant number of employees are not effectively using the software’s ability to attach documents, meaning paper documents are being sent internally, resulting in delay and resource wastage.

Level 1 evaluation of this course is easy. In a classroom, many organizations still use a printed end-of-course survey. In a virtual classroom environment, some learning management systems or synchronous learning tools include the ability to deliver an end-of-course evaluation (for reaction and/or confidence) or pre-course survey. If those features don’t exist, third party tools like zoomerang.com or surveymonkey.com allow quick, easy, and cost effective gathering and collation of data. If a confidence survey were done, a survey tool or email could be used to ask, “How confident are you in your ability to attach documents to email?” A quantifier, like a 1 to 10 scaled response, could be used. The same question could be asked in a post-course survey allowing easy assessment in the change of confidence. In any case, completion of the end-of-course survey can be a pre-requisite for a certificate of completion.

Level 2 can be more challenging in a virtual classroom environment depending on the tool used. Certainly a knowledge assessment could be done during or at the end of the course by way of polling, survey questions with multiple possible answers, or questioning, if the virtual classroom tool supports these features. Assuming a manageable class size (12-20 participants) verbal questioning could also be used; however, a more valid way of gauging skills and knowledge would be a performance test. For example, given the technical, computer-based example we are using, a participant could actually send an email with an attachment to the training team as part of the class. In doing so, the participant not only shows the knowledge of how to perform the task, but also the skill.

Levels 3 and 4 data is collected back on the job, so the data collection methods are not directly related to our virtual classroom delivery strategy. However, here are examples of how it might be collected in our running scenario.

Level 3 is normally done back on the job sometime after training—usually within six months. In our running example, an easy way to do a level three evaluation would be to send a post-course survey to the participants back on the job and require them to send it back as an email attachment to receive their certificate of completion. It would certainly demonstrate that they would be using the learning post course.

Level 4 data is often not sought by organizations. In this case, it would be straightforward. If delays and document flow problems were what caused the class to be delivered, those same organizational metrics could be reviewed six months to a year after training to see the organizational results. If the performance deficiency could be assigned a dollar value, then level four return on investment (ROI) data could easily be developed.

Takeaway? Although this simple example used the Kirkpatrick model in a virtual classroom scenario, the fundamental question to be answered in regard to any training is, “Did the learners do their job better as a result of the training?”

Paul

Accessibility means incorporating the concept of accessible design when creating a course. Accessible design is a design process in which the needs of people with disabilities (i.e. low or no vision learners, hearing impaired learners, and learners with physical limitations) are specifically considered.

When looking at “accessibility,” there are both design and delivery guidelines we need to consider for each group.

Design Guidelines

• Use a sans serif font (e.g. Arial, Franklin Gothic, Helvetica, Tahoma, or Verdana). San serif fonts increase the readability for low vision individuals and create less eye strain for everyone.
• Use dark text on a light-colored background. This increases contrast and increases readability for low-vision learners.
• If using video clips, make the narration interesting to engage the visually impaired as well as everyone else. For the hearing impaired, use closed-captioning or a printable version of the video’s script.
• When designing activities, ensure that there are roles that can be fulfilled by individuals with potential limitations (i.e. scorekeeper, observer, etc.).
• Adapt/modify activity instructions accordingly. Ask yourself, “Can instructions be printed in Braille or scripted with a large size font?” Additionally, think about what support any special needs participants will need to carry out their role.
• Reduce or eliminate the use of tables in design (even with hidden borders) whenever possible. Tables can impact the navigation of screen reader technology. (A screen reader is software for the visually impaired that reads the contents of a computer screen, converting the text to speech. Some screen readers can also convert text into Braille characters. Some examples of screen readers include JAWS, Window Eyes, and Home Page Reader.)
• Check out Accessibility resources. Accessibility guidelines for e-learning are covered in Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act. This section identifies the Accessibility standards for all information technology. Another resource is the help index in Microsoft Word. It has a tab on accessibility which contains 16 chapters.

Delivery Guidelines

• Talk to the person with the disability prior to class and ask what assistance he/she might want.
• For the visually impaired, provide detailed a verbal description for the visuals used in class. This includes descriptions of pictures and spoken language for text.
• Provide instruction both orally and in printed form. The format for the printed instructions will be determined by the disability being addressed (Braille for no vision and large font for low vision).
• Face people with hearing impairments so they can see your lips.
• Speak clearly at a normal volume.
• Be brief, use short sentences, and watch word choices (e.g. “a lot” versus “a plethora” of information).
• If using an interpreter, interact directly with the person who is deaf, not the interpreter.
• If you have someone in a wheelchair, position yourself at the approximate height of the person in the wheelchair when talking with him/her one-on one.

In summary, when designing and delivering training for any group in which there are special needs participants, be sure to keep their needs in mind. Your efforts will support their learning experience and that of the entire class.

Martha

Three Tips for an Engaging Virtual Classroom

The most common “hit” any type of e-learning takes is lack of engagement. For training to be effective, learners have to be involved. How do you engage someone in a virtual classroom environment when it is just the learner with a computer and a distant instructor? Here are three tips:

Size—it does matter. Many folks confuse virtual classroom with webinar. A webinar is basically a presentation of information. It is a valuable and efficient way to push content out to a target audience. It is not unusual to have hundreds of participants. Keep in mind that if we are talking about virtual classroom as a training intervention with a goal of performance improvement, we are looking at a much smaller number of participants to provide a higher degree of interactivity and involvement.

The Ralph Langevin saying of, “Expect from your learners what you see them do in the classroom,” applies to virtual classrooms as well. Consequently, Langevin recommends a maximum of twelve participants for virtual classroom. Mark Bucceri, Principle Educational Specialist for Saba Centra, has a broader, but similar, guidance. His suggestion is to take the class size you would use in face-to-face learning and “minus a few.” So, by way of example, if your typical instructor-led training class for a course would be eighteen, go for fifteen in virtual classroom. What we know for sure is that if there is little interaction, there is little engagement. If there is little engagement, there is little learning.

Use the tools. Most virtual classroom tools allow for much more interaction than “listen to me and look at my slides.” Take the time and design effort necessary to build in these sorts of tools. As an example, here is Centra’s menu and toolbars:

• The “Hand” indicates that the participant would like to speak.
• The “Yes” and “No” allows the participant to quickly agree or disagree, vote, or share experience.
• The “Laugh” and “Applaud” allows the same sort of expressions as you would hear in the classroom.
• The “Text chat” opens a window that allows user input and response during the presentation and can be downloaded from the software to the participant’s workstation after the training.

Even a tool like Microsoft’s Office Live Meeting, a web conference product shown below, has tools for interactivity such as the “Q&A” option, screen sharing, whiteboard, and virtual breakout rooms.

Other common interactions that could be used are surveys and screen sharing. A survey obtains participant reaction to a series of questions while screen sharing allows remote observance or control of either the instructor or participant’s workstation. Virtually any of the tools allow display of PowerPoint and other media. Most allow video.

As an example of how a virtual classroom session might use some of these tools, a session might start off with an introduction (including ground rules), acknowledgement of the experience the group brings with them, a survey identifying needs and experience, a lecture with an opportunity for questions and answers, an application piece that could include breakout rooms or screen sharing, and a text chat to asychronously address issues of interest and share experiences.

Say when??? Time zones are impactful. You can require an employee to “participate” in a virtual classroom at 2:00 AM local time, but how much will actually stick? Better to do several iterations of the same class keeping the learners within their normal working hours, than a larger class pulling people in from all over the globe.

Takeaway? Given the constraints of the tools available, the virtual classroom should closely and creatively approximate the same interactions that occur in a well-designed brick-and-mortar classroom.

Paul

For this blog, however, I would like to focus on content as a major factor when selecting the most effective e-learning strategy. Technical or conceptual content lends itself more to the e-learning strategies; however, interpersonal content has proven to be the least effective with this strategy for obvious reasons. When we are teaching or learning an interpersonal skill, we are interfacing with people. It adds tremendous value to actually practice with people in a live environment. e-Learning has been used effectively pre-course with interpersonal content to prepare the learner and post-course to reinforce the learning; however, it has not proved to be a successful replacement for real-world practice.

There was a recent study published in the May issue of T&D magazine that reported “75% of newly hired executives are having trouble with interpersonal skills.” The report further noted that “there was underperformance in the ability to build relationships, collaborate and influence.” I wondered if most of their training was online without hands-on practice. Perhaps those executives could improve their skills and benefit from our “hands-on” course, How to Influence People and Events.

As enamored as most are with all of the latest technology, it is still important not to throw the baby out with the bath water and remember the basics. Content should drive the bus when selecting the appropriate strategy, because after all, “Content is King.”

Linda

Can we guarantee performance results in an abbreviated training segment? Maybe, but performance results cannot be guaranteed on a maybe. When we are faced with tight constraints, we must use a blended learning approach to ensure success back on the job. This is sometimes easier said than done since blended learning is often misunderstood. Let’s review three common myths associated with blended learning so we can separate fact from fiction.

Myth #1: Using different training strategies within the training department—instructor-led training (ILT) for one course, web-based training (WBT) for another—means we are using blended learning.

Fact: Blended learning is using several training strategies to achieve a specific instructional (performance) goal. It can be a combination of both traditional and e-learning strategies. Traditional training strategies include instructor-led training, on-the-job training, self-paced learning, and jobs aids. e-Learning strategies include virtual classroom, WBT/CBT tutorials, self-directed e-learning, and e-job aids.

Myth #2: A blended learning approach must revolve around an e-learning component.

Fact: The core training solution can come from a combination of any of the traditional or e-learning strategies identified above, but it must have PAF. Often constraints make it difficult to accomplish the performance objective in the core training alone so additional performance support activities (PSAs) may be needed.

Myth #3: There is a perfect blend of training strategies and once you get it, you have a template for designing all future training.

Fact: This would be sooo nice! The strategy blend may not be static, but the process for determining whether to apply a blended learning solution is. We need to look at the constraints we have and make educated choices about the best blend to use. Some of the constraints to consider are: the number of learners, where are they located, how savvy/receptive they are to e-learning, what technology is available (for design, delivery, and learner use), the deadline for the course, any budget issues, the type of content (technical, interpersonal, and conceptual), the priority of each task, and if there is management buy-in and support.

So what might a blended learning solution look like?

Let’s say you need to design sales training and the instructional goal is, “The learner (sales rep) will be able to conduct a sales call.”

• The core training solution might consist of a two-hour instructor-led training program that incorporates lecture/discussion/behavior modeling (P) coupled with role-play (A) and feedback (F).
• The performance support activity (PSA) might consist of an on-the-job observation. Within one week of the instructor-lead training, the sales rep would review an e-job aid on making a sales call. Then a sales coach would observe the sales rep as he/she, makes a sales call. Afterwards the sales coach would give feedback on the sales rep’s performance.”

Training is providing the knowledge and skill so employees can perform their job. Our responsibility is to affect performance and to get it done quickly and effectively. By understanding and using blended learning, we can accomplish this goal.  And please have a look at Steve’s blended learning in action.

Martha