actions speak louder than words: creating meaningful e-learning

Actions Speak Louder than Words:

Creating Meaningful e-Learning Interactions

Ethan Edwards, Allen Interactions Inc.

Custom e-learning design, development & strategic consultingMINNEAPOLIS CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO TAMPA DENVER ST. LOUIS

800.799.6280 twitter.com/customelearning alleninteractions.com

To learn more about workplace learning performance improvement, please contact us at 800.799.6280.

This is not to say that drag-and-drop functionality can’t be really effective. In the example to the left, the learner is to identify security breaches in a workplace setting by dragging the magnifying glass to the offending images. Again, the visual- spatial nature of the task reinforces the visual focus desired in the ultimate performance behavior, but it also creates an immersion in the context and the challenge that is very engaging. Put more simply, it makes the action fun while still maintaining appropriate attention to the core lesson objectives

VALUE IN CREATING EFFORT AROUND USER RESPONSE

Finally there is value in creating effort around a user response. One of the weaknesses of many traditional e-learning activities is that they are simply too easy. There is virtually no physical effort required in producing the responses for multiple choice questions and so it is easy to understand how so many users exert no corresponding mental effort in choosing a response. An interaction that requires user effort accomplishes several important goals. First, it simply slows things down a bit. In most training situations (except those involving pure rote memorization) we want the learner to pause and engage in critical thinking, something that doesn’t happen when the learner is simply clicking buttons at whim. Second, an interaction that requires effort usually creates a much larger set of possible responses for the learner, which in turn makes it much less attractive for the learner to use guessing as the preferred first strategy. Finally, more complex actions make it reasonable to delay judgment, thereby giving the learner a chance to think about his or her answers, and self-correct when needed.

The example here illustrates this principle. The content is a content quiz in a culinary techniques lesson about identifying the components in the types of flour encountered in a typical question. The interaction manufactures a whimsical flour mill mechanism where the learner manipulates concrete controls to select the contents of each bag of flour. This makes the choices of the learner far more intentional and memorable than would be possible with a purely verbal format that tested this same content.

Too many instructional designs rely on a relatively small set of arbitrary activities as the core of their instruction without realizing how critical the specific activities the learner will perform are to the ultimate outcomes of a training piece. Creating activities that focus the learner on the content, mirror the real world, require the learner to engage in the expected outcomes, add a level of physical challenge matching the anticipated outcome, and require a level of thoughtful effort, will greatly enhance the engagement and long-term effectiveness of e-learning modules.

creating e-learning that makes a di!erence part iv: activity

fourth in a !ve-part series

ethan edwardsallen interactions inc.

WHITE PAPER

PART IV: ACTIVITY

This white paper series is available for download at : alleninteractions.com/white-papers

Creating e-Learning_Activity.indd 1 5/27/09 2:50:41 PM

PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

The most basic approach is the make the learner perform the same activity, or a close simulation of the activity in the learning module. For example, a major car manufacturer wanted to use e-learning to teach technicians how to diagnose faults in automotive electrical systems. This is done in the real world using a digital volt-ohm meter and placing the probes. The learning module shown to the right provided for the learner to perform precisely that activity—dragging probes and placing them in meaningful test locations. The greater the fidelity of the learning activity is to the performance environment, the greater the likelihood of lasting transfer to on-the-job performance.

TWO e-LEARNING APPROACHES COMPARED

Of course it is not always possible to create such a faithful representation of the target performance behaviors. A core concept in bank teller performance is ensuring the negotiability of monetary instruments presented in exchange for cash. A typical e-learning activity associated with this content would be to ask the learner in some way to validate a listing of the six requirements. One approach is shown below.

The activity to the left, clicking check boxes, has nothing to do with ultimate successful performance. The question format, itself, by cuing the desired target items, ignores the fact that the learner could be nursing a large number of “alternative” misconceptions that are not even addressed. Further, the only item

in the list not to be checked (the second option) is really more of a “trick” question to trip up the student for carelessness rather than actually helping the learner internalize this content.

Compare this approach with the activity illustrated in the alternative approach to the right. Here the learner is looking at an actual representation of a check to be evaluated in terms of negotiability and must select the element that is missing. There are no artificial cues to pre-digest the content; the learner must pick out the six requirements from the myriad other features of a check (in this case, the cursor doesn’t even change to a hand cursor to provide unrelated hints as to possible answers). The real behavior that the lesson is to teach is for the teller to visually investigate every check that passes across the desk (including physically turning each check over). The lesson activity is to point to the part of the check that is missing for negotiability. Does the teller on the job actually have to point to the check components? Of course not. We really just want the teller to look carefully at each check. But the beauty of this meaningful pointing is that the learner can’t do it without looking at the checks. So we take the measurable but otherwise arbitrary action of “pointing” to indicate the more vital behavior of “looking” that we’re interested in. When the learners succeed at this activity, we know that they have done exactly what we want them to do on the job—visually inspect every check for the requirements of negotiability.

DRAG-AND-DROP INTERACTIVITY

Designers often think that simply creating actions of greater complexity, the learning will be improved. Actually, the reverse is often the case. Drag-and-drop interactivity is frequently hailed as a “better” or “advanced” action around which to build a question. True, drag-and-drop does require more senses and a higher level of attention, but that challenge can backfire if misused. For example, the screen on the left illustrates a common matching exercise. The user must drag letters from the right to the empty boxes on the left. While matching activities can be a useful method of testing knowledge, this format actually creates an unnecessarily difficult challenge. Placing the letter in the relatively small target box requires such mental and motor control that the actual content is almost immediately forgotten.

nstructional Interactivity describes the empowering use of e-learning to create experiences of particular instructional value—experiences in which the learner’s mind is actively engaged in performing tasks

that will lead to improved readiness to perform in the real world. Because of the lack of oversight by a human teacher and the variability in motivation brought to the learning task by different users, designing true instructional interactivity into an e-learning module is key to the success of using technology and multimedia to teach. Previous articles in this series have discussed the importance of Context and Challenge in creating this environment of instructional interactivity. This installment delves into the specification of ACTIVITY, and how the design of the specific actions required of the learner can determine the overall effectiveness of a learning module, both in terms of mastery and retention.

The activity in an interaction is defined by the physical responses and actions that the learner is required to perform to achieve success. Unfortunately, most personal computers provide a ridiculously restricted range of possible activities for the learner to engage in. The two activities relied on most frequently are reading and listening—activities which the e-learning program has no effective way of monitoring whether they are even being done! Learners know this full well, and so, in many cases, they choose to skip these activities and simply move through lessons, neither reading nor listening in any particularly productive way. It’s hard for learning to occur when the primary designed learning activities are being skipped.

LIMITED RANGE OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Recognizing this, most e-learning designers realize that specific questioning must be inserted into the learning modules. One of the challenges in designing activities for online learning, is that most learning workstations provide such a limited range of possible activities for the learner. Without specialized (and often expensive) auxiliary input devices, an application can really only tell if the user has pointed at something, moved it on the screen, or typed some letters on the keyboard. These activities on their own have very little relation to actual behaviors in the target performance of most training programs. (Probably the most common testing activity in e-learning is the standard multiple choice question in which the learner presses on the keyboard or clicks on the screen buttons labeled “a,” “b,” “c,” and “d.” Virtually nowhere in life is this useful behavior—except in other e-learning programs.) There’s very little to be done about these technical constraints, but it does mean that we need to be particularly dedicated to a smart design approach that creates value around these potentially meaningless core actions.

There will always be portions of training where the primary focus is simply the delivery of information to the learner. Traditionally, these are the highly-criticized page turning applications where the activity is chiefly limited to clicking the “Next” button. This is particularly problematic because it is tempting for the learner to mindlessly click to advance without reading anything. In desperation, designers add narration, hoping that the voice will be more compelling, and then even disable the navigation functionality until the narrative is complete. This rarely accomplishes the goal of gaining the learner’s attention. Instead, it encourages the learners to check out until the “noise” stops before clicking “Next.” In fact, it actually makes it more convenient to be multi-tasking, reading email or surfing the Web, while waiting for the e-learning to proceed on its way unheeded.

A simple strategy that can add significance to these situations is simply to incorporate the navigation functionality into the information being presented, rather than keeping it completely unrelated in some sort of arbitrary navigation shell. This technique is apparent in the Car Loan learning module shown above. The learner is to read about seven components of the car dealership. Instead of clicking “Next” seven times, the learner identifies each section to read about through the stars placed on the context-setting image of the car lot. This breaks the unnecessary linearity of the traditional page-turner, disrupts the monotonous reflexive action of clicking the same button repeatedly, and provides user control of sequence and review.

Of course, most activity should be focused on demonstrating mastery rather than on navigation, but it is important to be mindful of exactly what the learner is to master when devising activities. People tend to remember what they do more than what they read or hear— so it is important to have learners do those things that are most important. Most traditional activities direct the learner to remember content, when the focus should really be on using the information to perform successfully.

Continued...

Ethan Edwards chief instructional strategist & principal consultantallen interactions inc.

Ethan has been designing online instruction for almost 25 years and is responsible for internal and external train-ing and communications regarding allen interactions’ unique perspective on designing and developing meaningful and memorable e-learning programs. Ethan is the primary instructor for ASTD’s e-Learning Instructional Design Certi!cate Program, and has spoken at conferences and private presentations throughout the world.

Visit alleninteractions.com/demos-page and select “Frontline Loss Provention” to view this demo.

PRACTICE MAKES PERFECT

The most basic approach is the make the learner perform the same activity, or a close simulation of the activity in the learning module. For example, a major car manufacturer wanted to use e-learning to teach technicians how to diagnose faults in automotive electrical systems. This is done in the real world using a digital volt-ohm meter and placing the probes. The learning module shown to the right provided for the learner to perform precisely that activity—dragging probes and placing them in meaningful test locations. The greater the fidelity of the learning activity is to the performance environment, the greater the likelihood of lasting transfer to on-the-job performance.

TWO e-LEARNING APPROACHES COMPARED

Of course it is not always possible to create such a faithful representation of the target performance behaviors. A core concept in bank teller performance is ensuring the negotiability of monetary instruments presented in exchange for cash. A typical e-learning activity associated with this content would be to ask the learner in some way to validate a listing of the six requirements. One approach is shown below.

The activity to the left, clicking check boxes, has nothing to do with ultimate successful performance. The question format, itself, by cuing the desired target items, ignores the fact that the learner could be nursing a large number of “alternative” misconceptions that are not even addressed. Further, the only item

in the list not to be checked (the second option) is really more of a “trick” question to trip up the student for carelessness rather than actually helping the learner internalize this content.

Compare this approach with the activity illustrated in the alternative approach to the right. Here the learner is looking at an actual representation of a check to be evaluated in terms of negotiability and must select the element that is missing. There are no artificial cues to pre-digest the content; the learner must pick out the six requirements from the myriad other features of a check (in this case, the cursor doesn’t even change to a hand cursor to provide unrelated hints as to possible answers). The real behavior that the lesson is to teach is for the teller to visually investigate every check that passes across the desk (including physically turning each check over). The lesson activity is to point to the part of the check that is missing for negotiability. Does the teller on the job actually have to point to the check components? Of course not. We really just want the teller to look carefully at each check. But the beauty of this meaningful pointing is that the learner can’t do it without looking at the checks. So we take the measurable but otherwise arbitrary action of “pointing” to indicate the more vital behavior of “looking” that we’re interested in. When the learners succeed at this activity, we know that they have done exactly what we want them to do on the job—visually inspect every check for the requirements of negotiability.

DRAG-AND-DROP INTERACTIVITY

Designers often think that simply creating actions of greater complexity, the learning will be improved. Actually, the reverse is often the case. Drag-and-drop interactivity is frequently hailed as a “better” or “advanced” action around which to build a question. True, drag-and-drop does require more senses and a higher level of attention, but that challenge can backfire if misused. For example, the screen on the left illustrates a common matching exercise. The user must drag letters from the right to the empty boxes on the left. While matching activities can be a useful method of testing knowledge, this format actually creates an unnecessarily difficult challenge. Placing the letter in the relatively small target box requires such mental and motor control that the actual content is almost immediately forgotten.

nstructional Interactivity describes the empowering use of e-learning to create experiences of particular instructional value—experiences in which the learner’s mind is actively engaged in performing tasks

that will lead to improved readiness to perform in the real world. Because of the lack of oversight by a human teacher and the variability in motivation brought to the learning task by different users, designing true instructional interactivity into an e-learning module is key to the success of using technology and multimedia to teach. Previous articles in this series have discussed the importance of Context and Challenge in creating this environment of instructional interactivity. This installment delves into the specification of ACTIVITY, and how the design of the specific actions required of the learner can determine the overall effectiveness of a learning module, both in terms of mastery and retention.

The activity in an interaction is defined by the physical responses and actions that the learner is required to perform to achieve success. Unfortunately, most personal computers provide a ridiculously restricted range of possible activities for the learner to engage in. The two activities relied on most frequently are reading and listening—activities which the e-learning program has no effective way of monitoring whether they are even being done! Learners know this full well, and so, in many cases, they choose to skip these activities and simply move through lessons, neither reading nor listening in any particularly productive way. It’s hard for learning to occur when the primary designed learning activities are being skipped.

LIMITED RANGE OF LEARNING ACTIVITIES

Recognizing this, most e-learning designers realize that specific questioning must be inserted into the learning modules. One of the challenges in designing activities for online learning, is that most learning workstations provide such a limited range of possible activities for the learner. Without specialized (and often expensive) auxiliary input devices, an application can really only tell if the user has pointed at something, moved it on the screen, or typed some letters on the keyboard. These activities on their own have very little relation to actual behaviors in the target performance of most training programs. (Probably the most common testing activity in e-learning is the standard multiple choice question in which the learner presses on the keyboard or clicks on the screen buttons labeled “a,” “b,” “c,” and “d.” Virtually nowhere in life is this useful behavior—except in other e-learning programs.) There’s very little to be done about these technical constraints, but it does mean that we need to be particularly dedicated to a smart design approach that creates value around these potentially meaningless core actions.

There will always be portions of training where the primary focus is simply the delivery of information to the learner. Traditionally, these are the highly-criticized page turning applications where the activity is chiefly limited to clicking the “Next” button. This is particularly problematic because it is tempting for the learner to mindlessly click to advance without reading anything. In desperation, designers add narration, hoping that the voice will be more compelling, and then even disable the navigation functionality until the narrative is complete. This rarely accomplishes the goal of gaining the learner’s attention. Instead, it encourages the learners to check out until the “noise” stops before clicking “Next.” In fact, it actually makes it more convenient to be multi-tasking, reading email or surfing the Web, while waiting for the e-learning to proceed on its way unheeded.

A simple strategy that can add significance to these situations is simply to incorporate the navigation functionality into the information being presented, rather than keeping it completely unrelated in some sort of arbitrary navigation shell. This technique is apparent in the Car Loan learning module shown above. The learner is to read about seven components of the car dealership. Instead of clicking “Next” seven times, the learner identifies each section to read about through the stars placed on the context-setting image of the car lot. This breaks the unnecessary linearity of the traditional page-turner, disrupts the monotonous reflexive action of clicking the same button repeatedly, and provides user control of sequence and review.

Of course, most activity should be focused on demonstrating mastery rather than on navigation, but it is important to be mindful of exactly what the learner is to master when devising activities. People tend to remember what they do more than what they read or hear— so it is important to have learners do those things that are most important. Most traditional activities direct the learner to remember content, when the focus should really be on using the information to perform successfully.

Continued...

Ethan Edwards chief instructional strategist & principal consultantallen interactions inc.

Ethan has been designing online instruction for almost 25 years and is responsible for internal and external train-ing and communications regarding allen interactions’ unique perspective on designing and developing meaningful and memorable e-learning programs. Ethan is the primary instructor for ASTD’s e-Learning Instructional Design Certi!cate Program, and has spoken at conferences and private presentations throughout the world.

Visit alleninteractions.com/demos-page and select “Frontline Loss Provention” to view this demo.

Custom e-learning design, development & strategic consultingMINNEAPOLIS CHICAGO SAN FRANCISCO TAMPA DENVER ST. LOUIS

800.799.6280 twitter.com/customelearning alleninteractions.com

To learn more about workplace learning performance improvement, please contact us at 800.799.6280.

This is not to say that drag-and-drop functionality can’t be really effective. In the example to the left, the learner is to identify security breaches in a workplace setting by dragging the magnifying glass to the offending images. Again, the visual- spatial nature of the task reinforces the visual focus desired in the ultimate performance behavior, but it also creates an immersion in the context and the challenge that is very engaging. Put more simply, it makes the action fun while still maintaining appropriate attention to the core lesson objectives

VALUE IN CREATING EFFORT AROUND USER RESPONSE

Finally there is value in creating effort around a user response. One of the weaknesses of many traditional e-learning activities is that they are simply too easy. There is virtually no physical effort required in producing the responses for multiple choice questions and so it is easy to understand how so many users exert no corresponding mental effort in choosing a response. An interaction that requires user effort accomplishes several important goals. First, it simply slows things down a bit. In most training situations (except those involving pure rote memorization) we want the learner to pause and engage in critical thinking, something that doesn’t happen when the learner is simply clicking buttons at whim. Second, an interaction that requires effort usually creates a much larger set of possible responses for the learner, which in turn makes it much less attractive for the learner to use guessing as the preferred first strategy. Finally, more complex actions make it reasonable to delay judgment, thereby giving the learner a chance to think about his or her answers, and self-correct when needed.

The example here illustrates this principle. The content is a content quiz in a culinary techniques lesson about identifying the components in the types of flour encountered in a typical question. The interaction manufactures a whimsical flour mill mechanism where the learner manipulates concrete controls to select the contents of each bag of flour. This makes the choices of the learner far more intentional and memorable than would be possible with a purely verbal format that tested this same content.

Too many instructional designs rely on a relatively small set of arbitrary activities as the core of their instruction without realizing how critical the specific activities the learner will perform are to the ultimate outcomes of a training piece. Creating activities that focus the learner on the content, mirror the real world, require the learner to engage in the expected outcomes, add a level of physical challenge matching the anticipated outcome, and require a level of thoughtful effort, will greatly enhance the engagement and long-term effectiveness of e-learning modules.

creating e-learning that makes a di!erence part iv: activity

fourth in a !ve-part series

ethan edwardsallen interactions inc.

WHITE PAPER

PART IV: ACTIVITY

This white paper series is available for download at : alleninteractions.com/white-papers

actions speak louder than words: creating meaningful e-learning

Documents