S e p t e m b e r 1 0

Strategies and Techniques for Designers, Developers, and Managers of eLearning

A publication of

THIS WEEK — DESIGN TECHNIQUES

2002

To readily identify ef-

fective e-Learning, we

need fewer end-user

and expert opinions

and more data. Decis-

ions about e-Learning

courseware must

begin with an under-

standing of how the

mind works during

learning and of what

research tells us about

the factors that lead

to learning. Here are

the six principles that

have emerged from

controlled experiments

in how to best use

multimedia to

optimize learning.

Six Principles of Effective e-Learning:What Works and WhyBY RUTH CLARK

Take any e-lesson — show it to five people and askthem what they think. My bet is you will get five differ-ent opinions about the quality of the courseware. But,

wait! What if the five reviewers are educational “experts” —specialists with advanced degrees in training and educa-tion? Now you might expect a greater consensus. Based onmy experience over the past three years reviewing courseswith experts, I predict a little more agreement; but it’s notlikely to be anything close to a consensus.

Unlike classroom training, e-Learning isvery visible. While much of the classroomexperience is packaged in the instructorand in fact varies from class to class, youcan easily see and hear all elements of e-Learning. Everything from screen color tocontent accuracy to the types of practicesis readily available for scrutiny. I believethat this high visibility will prove to be agood thing. With this much more accessi-ble instructional environment, we will beable to more readily identify effective andineffective training. But to do so, we haveto move beyond a reliance on end-user (oreven expert) opinions. After a year of workon a commission tasked to identify thequalities of effective e-Learning and hear-

ing a great deal of (often contradictory)views, I decided I needed fewer opinionsand more data.

Decisions about e-Learning coursewaremust begin with an understanding of howthe mind works during learning and of whatresearch data tell us about what factorslead to learning. This is where decisionsmust begin. Naturally factors other thanpsychological effectiveness come into playin your multimedia learning decisions. Forexample, instructional strategies will beshaped by parameters of the technologylike bandwidth and hardware, and by envi-ronmental factors such as budget, time,and organizational culture.

Continued on next page

W W W. E L E A R N I N G G U I L D . C O M

What is e-Learning?Since the term e-Learning is used

inconsistently, let’s start with a basic definition. For the purposes of this discus-sion, e-Learning is content and instruc-tional methods delivered on a computer(whether on CD-ROM, the Internet, or anintranet), and designed to build knowl-edge and skills related to individual ororganizational goals. This definitionaddresses:

The what: training delivered in digitalform,

The how: content and instructional meth-ods to help learn the content, and

The why: to improve organizational per-formance by building job-relevant knowl-edge and skills in workers.

In this article, the main focus and exam-ples are drawn from business self-studycourseware that may include synchronousor asynchronous communication options.For example, the screen in Figure 1 is partof a web-delivered course designed toteach the use of software called Dream-weaver to create web pages. The main con-tent is the steps needed to perform thisparticular task with Dreamweaver. Theinstructional methods include a demonstra-tion of how to perform the steps along withan opportunity to practice and get feed-

back on your accuracy. There is a distinction among three

important elements of an e-lesson: theinstructional methods, the instructionalmedia, and media elements. In spite ofoptimistic projections of the positive im-pact of technology on learning, the realityhas not lived up to expectations. From filmto the Internet, each new wave of technolo-gy has stimulated prospects of revolutionsin learning. But research comparing learn-ing from one medium such as the class-room with another medium such as theInternet generally fails to demonstrate sig-nificant advantages for any particular tech-nology. These repeated failures lead us toabandon a technology-centered approachto learning in favor of a learner-centeredapproach. Having participated in manypoor training sessions in the classroomand on the computer, we recognize that it’s not the medium that causes learning.Rather it is the design of the lesson itselfand the best use of instructional methodsthat make the difference. A learner-cen-tered approach suggests that we designlessons that accommodate human learningprocesses regardless of the mediainvolved.

Instructional methods are the tech-niques used to help learners process new

information in ways that lead to learning.Instructional methods include the use oftechniques such as examples, practiceexercises, simulations, and analogies.

Instructional media are the deliveryagents that contain the content and theinstructional methods including computers,workbooks, and even instructors. Not allmedia can carry all instructional methodswith equal effectiveness. For each newtechnology that appears on the scene, wetypically start by treating it like older mediawith which we are familiar. For example,much early web-based training looked a lotlike books — mostly using text on a screento communicate content. As the technologybehind a given medium matures, we getbetter at exploiting the features unique tothat medium for learning.

A third component of multimedia learn-ing is the media elements. The media elements refer to the text, graphics, andaudio used to present content and instruc-tional methods. For example in theDreamweaver screen shown in Figure 1,the content is the steps needed to performthe particular task which is the focus ofthis lesson. The instructional methodsinclude a demonstration and simulationpractice with feedback. The media elementsinclude a graphic of the screen and (during

the demonstration) audionarration that explains the steps seen in the animation.

For the past ten years,Richard Mayer and hiscolleagues at theUniversity of California atSanta Barbara have con-ducted a series of con-trolled experiments onhow to best use audio,text, and graphics to opti-mize learning in multime-dia. Six media elementprinciples can be definedbased on Mayer’s work.What follows is a sum-mary of these principlesalong with supportingexamples, psychologicalrationale and research.Use this information asguidelines regarding thebenefits of graphics, theplacement of text andgraphics on the screen,and the best way to pres-ent words that describegraphics among others.2

SE

PTE

MB

ER

10

, 2

00

2 /

TH

E E

LE

AR

NIN

G D

EV

EL

OP

ER

S’

JOU

RN

AL

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s

FIGURE 1 Practice exercise from an e-lesson on Dreamweaver. With permission from Element K.

The multimedia principle: addinggraphics to words can improvelearning.

By graphics we refer to a variety of illus-trations including still graphics such as linedrawings, charts, and photographs andmotion graphics such as animation andvideo. Research has shown that graphicscan improve learning. The trick is to useillustrations that are congruent with theinstructional message. Images added forentertainment or dramatic value not onlydon’t improve learning but they can actual-ly depress learning (see the coherenceprinciple below).

The research

Mayer compared learning about variousmechanical and scientific processes includ-ing how a bicycle pump works and howlightning forms, from lessons that usedwords alone or used words and pictures(including still graphics and animations). In most cases he found much improvedunderstanding when pictures were includ-ed. In fact, he found an average gain of89% on transfer tests from learners whostudied lessons with text and graphicscompared to learners whose lessons werelimited to text alone. Therefore we haveempirical support that should discouragethe use of screens and screens of text asan effective learning environment. Howevernot all pictures are equally effective. We willneed more principles to see how to bestmake use of visuals to promote learning.

The psychology

Learning occurs by the encoding of newinformation in permanent memory calledlong-term memory. According to a theorycalled Dual Encoding, content communicat-ed with text and graphics sends two codes— a verbal code and a visual code. Havingtwo opportunities for encoding into long-term memory increases learning.

The application

While graphics can boost learning, it willbe important to select the kind of graphicthat is congruent with the text and with thelearning goal. As I’ll discuss below, graph-ics that are irrelevant or gratuitous actuallydepress learning. Consider selecting yourgraphics based on the type of content youare teaching. Table 1 summarizes somegraphics that work well to illustrate five keycontent types: facts, concepts, processes,procedures, and principles. Processes forexample, are effectively illustrated by ani-mations or by still graphics that show

change through arrows. Figure 2 shows an effective illustration of a process in e-Learning.

The contiguity principle: placingtext near graphics improves learning.

Contiguity refers to the alignment ofgraphics and text on the screen. Often in e-Learning when a scrolling screen is used,the words are placed at the top and theillustration is placed under the words sothat when you see the text you can’t seethe graphic and vice versa. This is a com-mon violation of the contiguity principlethat states that graphics and text relatedto the graphics should be placed close toeach other on the screen.

The research

Mayer compared learning about the sci-ence topics described above in versionswhere text was placed separate from thevisuals with versions where text was inte-grated on the screen near the visuals. Thevisuals and text were identical in both ver-sions. He found that the integrated ver-sions were more effective. In five out offive studies, learning from screens thatintegrated words near the visuals yieldedan average improvement of 68%.

The psychology

Learning occurs in humans by way ofworking memory which is the active part ofour memory system. You have probablyheard of ‘seven plus or minus two’. Thisrefers to the severe limits placed on work-

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ SE

PTE

MB

ER

10, 2

00

2 3

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s

FIGURE 2 e-Learning illustrating a biological process.

Content Type ExampleGraphic Support

Fact

Concept

Process

Procedure

Principle

Realistic illustrations of specificforms, screens, equipment

Realistic illustrations of multipleexamples of the concept

Animated diagrams illustratingstages of process

Video or animated demonstrationsof near-transfer task being per-formed

Video or diagrams of far-transfertasks being performed

Illustration of software screen

Pictures of good web pages to illustrate concept of what is a goodweb page

Activities in a computer network

Animation of how to use a softwareapplication

Video of effective sales closing techniques.

TABLE 1: Graphics to support content types

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s4

SE

PTE

MB

ER

10

, 2

00

2 /

TH

E E

LE

AR

NIN

G D

EV

EL

OP

ER

S’

JOU

RN

AL

ing memory. Working memory is not veryefficient, and can only hold seven (plus orminus two) facts or items at a time.

Since working memory capacity is need-ed for learning to occur, when workingmemory becomes overloaded, learning isdepressed. If words and the visuals theydescribe are separate from each other, thelearner needs to expend extra cognitiveresources to integrate them. In contrast, inmaterials in which the words and graphicsare placed contiguously, the integration isdone for the learner. Therefore the learneris free to spend those scarce cognitiveresources on learning.

The application

As mentioned above, scrolling screens

sometimes violate the contiguity principleby separating text and related visuals. Butit is not the scrolling screen itself which isto blame. One way to use scrolling screenseffectively is to embed smaller graphics onthe screen with related text close by. For ex-ample, a screen from my online designcourse is shown in Figure 3. You can seethat the visual has been reduced andplaced on the screen near the text.

The modality principle: explaininggraphics with audio improveslearning.

If you have the technical capabilities touse other modalities like audio, it can sub-stantially improve learning outcomes. Thisis especially true of audio narration of an

animation or a complex visual in a topicthat is relatively complex and unfamiliar to the learner.

The research

Mayer compared learning from two e-Learning versions that explained graphicswith exactly the same words — only themodality was changed. Thus he comparedlearning from versions that explained ani-mations with words in text with versionsthat explained animations with words inaudio. In all comparisons, the narrated versions yielded better learning with anaverage improvement of 80%.

The psychology

As described under the contiguity princi-ple, working memory is a limited resourcethat must be preserved for learning pur-poses. Cognitive psychologists havelearned that working memory has two sub-storage areas — one for visual informationand one for phonetic information. One wayto stretch the capacity of working memoryis to utilize both of these storage areas.Figure 4 illustrates how the use of graphicswhich enter visual memory and audiowhich enters phonetic memory maximizeworking memory capacity.

The application

Audio should be used in situationswhere overload is likely. For example, if youare watching an animated demonstrationof maybe five or six steps to use a soft-ware application, you need to focus yourvisual resources on the animation. If youhave to read text and at the same timewatch the animation, overload is more like-ly than when you can hear the animationbeing narrated.

This does not mean that text shouldnever be used. For example, some informa-tion in e-Learning, such as directions to anexercise, needs to be available to thelearner over a longer period of time. Anywords that are needed as reference shouldbe presented in text. Also, when usingaudio to explain an animation, a replayoption should be available for learners tohear the explanation again.

The redundancy principle:explaining graphics with audioand redundant text can hurt learning.

Some e-lessons provide words in text andin audio that reads the text. This mightseem like a good way to present informationin several formats and thus improve learn-

FIGURE 3 An example of application of the continuity principle.

FIGURE 4 Visual and supporting auditory information maximize working memory resources.

MultimediaPresentation

Sensory Memory

Working Memory

PhoneticProcessing

VisualProcessing

SpokenWords

Pictures

Ears

Eyes

ing. Controlled research however, indicatesthat learning is actually depressed when agraphic is explained by a combination of textand narration that reads the text.

The research

In studies conducted by Mayer and byothers, researchers have found that bettertransfer learning is realized when graphicsare explained by audio alone rather than byaudio and text. Mayer found similar resultsin two studies for an average gain of 79%.

There are exceptions to the redundancyprinciple as recently reported by RoxanaMoreno and Mayer. In a comparison of ascientific explanation presented with narra-tion alone and with narration and text,learning was significantly better in condi-tions that included both narration and text.

The researchers conclude that, “Aneffective technique to promote broaderlearning with multimedia explanations is touse the auditory and visual modalitiessimultaneously for verbal information if noother visual material is presented concur-rently.” Therefore there will be limited situ-ations in which narration of on-screen textcould be helpful to learning such as whenthere is no graphic on the screen or when

readers lack good reading skills.

The psychology

As illustrated in Figure 5, overload of thevisual and auditory components of workingmemory occurs if an on-screen graphic isexplained by both text (which enters thevisual center) and narration. However if

there is no on-screen visual, then overloadwould not result and because dual codeswould be provided, learning would beincreased.

The application

In general, it’s advisable to avoid narra-tion of text when there is a demanding

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ SE

PTE

MB

ER

10, 2

00

2 5

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s

It’s Focus Time...

Learn from powerful real-life case studiesDevelop new skills to move your organization forwardDiscover ways to leverage limited resourcesNetwork within your professional communityShare, Discuss, Debate, and be Challenged...

November 12 - 15, 2002San Diego, CA

Time to Focus on Proven Strategies,Techniques, and Technologies for e-Learning

Produced by

FIGURE 5 Presenting words in text and audio can overload working memory in presence of graphics.

MultimediaPresentation

Sensory Memory

Working Memory

Eyes

Ears

VisualComponent

AuditoryComponent

PrintedWords

Narration

Animation

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s

visual illustration on the screen. This isespecially important when working memoryis subject to overload such as during ananimation in which learners have limitedcontrol over the pacing, or during the pres-entation of complex new information. In con-trast, when there is no graphic informationon the screen, then research to date wouldsuggest that presenting words in text andauditory format would benefit learning.

The coherence principle: usinggratuitous visuals, text, andsounds can hurt learning.

It’s common knowledge that e-Learningattrition can be a problem. In well-intendedefforts to spice up e-Learning, somedesigners use what I call a Las Vegasapproach. By that I mean they add glitzand games to make the experience moreengaging. The glitz can take a variety offorms such as dramatic vignettes (in videoor text) inserted to add interest, back-ground music to add appeal, or popularmovie characters or themes to add enter-tainment value.

As an example, consider a storyboardfor a course on using statistical quality con-trol techniques to improve quality, shown inFigure 6. To add interest, several storiesabout the costs of product recalls wereadded. But how do these additions affectlearning?

The research

In the 1980’s research on details pre-sented in text that were related to a lesson

explanation but were extraneous in naturefound them to depress learning. Such addi-tions were called “seductive details.” Inmore recent research, Mayer has foundsimilar negative effects from seductivedetails presented either via text or video.For example, in the lesson on lightning for-mation, short descriptions of the vulnera-bility of golfers to lightning strikes and theeffect of lightning strikes on airplanes wereadded to the lesson.

In six of six experiments, learners whostudied from the base lesson showedmuch greater learning than those whostudied from the enhanced versions. Theaverage gain was 105%. Similar effectswere seen in a comparison of lessons thatincluded background music and environ-mental sounds with base lessons that didnot add extra auditory material.

Finally, a third series of experimentscompared an expanded explanation thatused 500 words and several captionedillustrations with a lesson that used onlythe illustrations and their captions.Students who received the summary ver-sion — just the visuals and their captions— actually achieved 69% more learning.

The psychology

Mayer did several studies together withS. F. Harp to determine why seductivedetails depress learning. In these experi-ments they evaluated the hypotheses thatthese added materials did their damage by:

1. Distracting learners from key instruc-tional points,

2. Disrupting the learner’s organizationof information into a coherent mentalmodel, or

3. Activating irrelevant prior knowledge. They created three versions of lessons

that included seductive details but thatalso added instructional methods thatshould compensate for their damagingeffects. Only one of their compensatorytreatments reduced the negative effects ofthe seductive details. Seductive detailsplaced at the beginning of a lesson weremore damaging than the same informationplaced at the end of the lesson.

Therefore, they concluded that thesedetails activate inappropriate prior knowl-edge. Since learning takes place by theintegration of new information into existingknowledge in long-term memory, stimulat-ing inappropriate prior knowledge wouldhave a damaging effect.

The application

The coherence principle essentially tellsus that “less is more” when learning is theprimary goal. It suggests that visuals ortext that is not essential to the instruction-al explanation be avoided. It suggests thatyou not add music to instructional seg-ments. It also suggests that lean text thatgets to the point is better than lengthyelaborated text.

As designers we need to make a dis-tinction between entertainment and learning. This is not to say that an effec-tive e-Learning course is not interesting.Mayer reminds us of prior distinctionsbetween cognitive interest and emotionalinterest. Cognitive interest stems frommaterials that promote understanding ofthe content presented — in other wordsfrom materials that optimize learning.Emotional interest comes from the additionof extraneous materials which have beenshown to depress learning. Our goalshould be to promote cognitive interestand avoid emotional interest in situationsthat require cognitive learning processes.

The personalization principle: useconversational tone and pedagogi-cal agents to increase learning.

A series of interesting experiments sum-marized by Byron Reeves and Clifford Nassin their book, The Media Equation, showedthat people responded to computers follow-ing social conventions that apply whenresponding to other people. For example,Reeves and Nass found that when evaluat-ing a computer program on the same com-puter that presented the program, the rat-6

SE

PTE

MB

ER

10

, 2

00

2 /

TH

E E

LE

AR

NIN

G D

EV

EL

OP

ER

S’

JOU

RN

AL

FIGURE 6 A seductive detail from a quality lesson. From Clark and Mayer, 2002.

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ SE

PTE

MB

ER

10, 2

00

2 7

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s

ings were higher than if the evaluation wasmade on a different computer. People wereunconsciously avoiding giving negative eval-uations directly to the source.

Of course individuals know that the com-puter is not a person. However, deeplyingrained conventions of social interactiontend to exert themselves unconsciously inhuman-computer interactions. These find-ings prompted a series of experiments thatshow that learning is better when the learn-er is socially engaged in a lesson either viaconversational language or by an informallearning agent.

The research

Based on the work of Reeves and Nass,Mayer and others have established thatlearning programs that engage the learnerdirectly by using first and second personlanguage yield better learning than thesame programs that use more formal lan-guage. Likewise a number of studies haveshown that adding a learning agent — acharacter who offers instructional advice— can also improve learning.

While some computer scientists areworking to make agents very realistic, aseries of studies using Herman the Bug(see Figure 7) as an agent found that:

1. The appearance of the agent made lit-tle difference — a cartoon or humanworked just as well.

2. Learning was better when the agent’swords were presented in audio rather thanin text and in a conversational style ratherthan in a formal style — congruent withthe modality and personalization principles.

3. The agent did not even need to bevisible on the screen — the voice alonewas sufficient to promote better learning.

The psychology

Learning is based on an engagement ofthe learner with the content of the instruc-tion. Even though learners know that com-puters are inanimate, the use of conversa-tional language either directly in the pro-gram or via an agent seems to stimulatevery ingrained unconscious social conven-tions that lead to deeper learning.

When you are in a conversation withsomeone you are expected to listen andrespond in a meaningful way. This requiresyou to invest attention in what the personis saying, to process it and to generate a meaningful response. A similar modelseems to apply when learners see the e-Learning as an engagement with a so-cial partner — even an inanimate one.

The application

When you write the script for your e-les-sons, use first and second person con-structions, but don’t over do it. For exam-ple, dialog such as, “Hi Dude — Are youready for some exciting information onquality control tools?” is incongruent andmore distracting than helpful. The researchon pedagogical agents is quite new soapplications are still a bit tentative.

First, it seems that you don’t need to

invest a lot of effort in the physical repre-sentation of the agent. Second, you needto consider the role of the agent. To beuseful the agent needs to serve an instruc-tionally valid role — not just appear as anon-screen character.

One example I liked is shown in Figure8. In this program designed to teach read-ing comprehension at a fourth to sixthgrade level, the agent Jim is introducedand appears throughout the program to

FIGURE 7 Herman the Bug is a pedagogical agent. From Clark and Mayer, 2002.

FIGURE 8 Jim serves as a pedagogical agent. With permission from Plato LearningSystems.

DESIGN / t e c h n i q u e s

show readers comprehension strategiesthat have worked for him.

ConclusionSo there you have it. These six media

element principles should give you thebasics since all e-Learning programs mustrely on some combination of graphics, text,and audio to deliver their content. Perhapsnow that you better understand theresearch that has been done, the psycho-logical foundations of why the principleswork and have seen some examples ofhow the principles are applied you will feelmore confident in using them yourself.

ReferencesClark, R.C. and Mayer, R.E. (2002).

E-Learning and the Science of Instruction:Proven Guidelines for Consumers andDesigners of Multimedia Learning. SanFrancisco: Jossey-Bass Pfeiffer (AvailableOctober 2002).

Clark, R.C. (1999). Developing TechnicalTraining: A Structured Approach forDeveloping Classroom and Computer-Based Instructional Materials. SilverSpring, MD: International Society forPerformance Improvement.

Harp, S.F. and Mayer, R.E. (1998). Howseductive details do their damage: A theo-

ry of cognitive interest in science learning.Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (3),414-434.

Kalyuga, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J.(2000). Journal of Educational Psychology,92 (1), 126-136.

Moreno, R. & Mayer, R.E. (2002). Verbal redundancy in multimedia learning:When reading helps listening. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 94 (1), 156-163.

Reeves, B., & Nass, C. (1996). TheMedia Equation. New York: CambridgeUniversity Press.

AUTHOR CONTACT

Dr. Ruth Clark is a recog-nized specialist in instruc-tional design and technicaltraining, and holds a doctor-ate in Educational Psycho-logy and Instructional Tech-nology from the University

of Southern California. Prior to foundingClark Training & Consulting, she served asTraining Manager for Southern CaliforniaEdison. Dr. Clark is a past president oftheISPI. She is the author of three booksincluding Developing Technical Training andthe award-winning Building Expertise. Hermost recent book, E-Learning & TheScience of Instruction is co-authored with

Dr. Richard Mayer of the University ofCalifornia at Santa Barbara, a recognizedexpert in multimedia research. Dr. Clark is a frequent speaker at industry eventsaround the world. Reach Ruth by email atRuth@Clarktraining.com.

SIG TALK DISCUSSIONS

Extend your learning beyond the printedpage! If you are looking for more informa-tion on this topic, if you have questionsabout an article, or if you disagree with aviewpoint stated in this article, then jointhe SIG Talk discussions online and extendyour learning.

Follow these easy steps to participate:

1. Go to www.eLearningGuild.com2. Click on the SIG Talk button on the

main menu.3. Using the pull down menu, select the

SIG Talk discussion: Journal Topics4. Select this article from the Subject list.5. Click on ADD A NEW MESSAGE.6. Enter your message. It will be posted

as soon as you hit the Submit buttonon the form.

8S

EP

TEM

BE

R 1

0,

20

02

/ T

HE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JO

UR

NA

L

THANK YOU TO THESE GUILD ENTERPRISE SPONSORS

Spectra Interactive Learning is a unique,full-service e-Learning consulting company— growing and expanding in North Americaand Europe to meet the growing need forexpertise in e-Learning strategy develop-ment, instructional design and programimplementation.

www.spectrainteractive.comContact: Brenda Pfaus, President bpfaus@spectrainteractive.comOttawa, Canada (613) 230-9978

Cyclone Interactive is an interactive mediaand web development firm creating online,CD and presentation solutions for a widerange of clients and industries.

www.cycloneinteractive.com Contact: Earl Dimaculanganearl@cycloneinteractive.com617.350.8834

To learn how to become a Guild EnterpriseSponsor, please contact David Holcombe atdh@eLearningGuild.com or call 707.566.8990.

CLARK Training & Consulting (CTC) is aglobal leader in instructional design offer-ing both training and consulting services.Our award-winning seminars are based onthe latest research in instructional psychol-ogy and human performance improvement.

www.clarktraining.comContact: Kimberly Perkins602-230-9190Go in-depth — Learn more about the concepts

and techniques touched upon in this article. Ruth Clark will be conducting a full-day pre-conference workshop at The eLearningGuild Annual Conference. The workshop will be held November 12, 2002. The conference runs November 13 - 15.

P1: E-Learning & The Science of InstructionWhat is the best way to combine text, pictures, and audio in e-Lessons? How canlearning be negatively affected by a dramatic story or decorative graphic? How cancollaborative tools be used to promote learning? This workshop is intended for professionals who are familiar with e-Learning and would like to learn the latestresearch and techniques on the kinds of instructional methods that work best utilizing empirical evidence and cognitive learning processes. Learn to identify how instructional methods can either support or interfere with human informationprocessing events. You will receive a copy of Dr. Clark's recent book which thisworkshop is based on.

Complete information about this conference workshop, and how to register can be found at: http://www.elearningguild.com/pbuild/linkbuilder.cfm?selection=doc.149

THE

EL

EA

RN

ING

DE

VE

LO

PE

RS

’ JOU

RN

AL

/ SE

PTE

MB

ER

10, 2

00

2 9

The eLearning Developers’ Journal™ isdesigned to serve the industry as a catalyst forinnovation and as a vehicle for the dissemina-tion of new and practical strategies and tech-niques for e-Learning designers, developers andmanagers. The Journal is not intended to bethe definitive authority. Rather, it is intended to be a medium through which e-Learning practi-tioners can share their knowledge, expertiseand experience with others for the general betterment of the industry.

As in any profession, there are many differ-ent perspectives about the best strategies,techniques and tools one can employ to accom-plish a specific objective. This Journal will sharethese different perspectives and does not posi-tion any one as “the right way,” but rather weposition each article as “one of the right ways”for accomplishing a goal. We assume thatreaders will evaluate the merits of each articleand use the ideas they contain in a mannerappropriate for their specific situation. Weencourage discussion and debate about articlesand provide an online SIG Talk™ discussionboard for each article.

The articles contained in the Journal are allwritten by people who are actively engaged inthis profession at one level or another — not by paid journalists or writers. Submissions arealways welcome at any time as are suggestionsfor articles and future topics. To learn moreabout how to submit articles and/or ideas,please refer to the directions on this page orvisit www.eLearningGuild.com.

Publisher David Holcombe

Editorial Director Heidi Fisk

Editor Bill Brandon

Copy Editor Charles Holcombe

Design Director Nancy Marland

The eLearning Guild™ Advisory BoardRuth Clark, Conrad Gottfredson, John Hartnett,

Bill Horton, Kevin Moore, Eric Parks, Marc Rosenberg, Allison Rossett

Copyright 2002. The eLearning Developers’ Journal™.Compilation copyright by The eLearning Guild 2002. Allrights reserved. Please contact The eLearning Guild forreprint permission.

The eLearning Developers’ Journal is published weeklyby The eLearning Guild, 525 College Avenue, Suite215, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Phone: 707.566.8990.The eLearning Guild is an operating unit of FocuszoneMedia, Inc., 1030 Beatrice Street, Eagan, MN 55121.

The Journal is distributed to all Guild members free ofcharge.To join the Guild go to www.eLearningGuild.com.

The eLearning Guild™ isa Community of Practicefor designers, developers,and managers of e-Learn-

ing. Through this member-driven community,we provide high-quality learning opportunities,networking services, resources, and publica-tions. Community members represent a diversegroup of instructional designers, content devel-opers, web developers, project managers, con-tractors, consultants, and managers and direc-tors of training and learning services — all ofwhom share a common interest in e-Learningdesign, development, and management.

The eLearning Developers’ Journal™

The Guild publishes the only online “e-Journal”in the e-Learning industry that is focused ondelivering real world “how to make it happen inyour organization” information. The Journal ispublished weekly and features articles writtenby both industry experts and members whowork every day in environments just like yours.As an active member, you will have unlimitedaccess to the Journal archive.

Guild Research

The Guild has an ongoing industry researchservice that conducts surveys on 20 topicseach year. These topics are identified by theResearch Advisory Committee. The data collect-ed is available for all members.

Resources, Resources, Resources

The Guild hosts the e-Learning industries mostcomprehensive resource knowledge database.Currently there are over 1,350 resources avail-

able. Members have access to all of theseresources and they can also post resources atany time!

People Connecting With People

The Guild provides a variety of online membernetworking tools including SIG Talk™ discussionboards, and the Needs & Leads™ bulletinboard. These services enable members to dis-cuss topics of importance, to ask others tohelp them find information they need, and toprovide leads to other members.

It’s About Leadership

The Guild draws leadership from an amazingAdvisory Board made up of individuals who pro-vide insight and guidance to help ensure thatthe Guild serves its constituency well. We arehonored to have their active engagement andparticipation. The Guild has also establishedthree committees made up of active memberswho help steer its editorial, events program andresearch efforts.

Discounts, Discounts, Discounts

Guild members receive discounts on all Guildconferences and on other selected productsand services. Your Guild membership will saveyou 20% off the list price of Guild event!

Membership is Completely FREE!

Yes, FREE! All you are required to do is com-plete a membership profile form and you willhave access to everything listed above... andMORE! Join today at www.eLearningGuild.com!

This publication is by the people, for the people. That means it’s written by YOU the readers andmembers of The eLearning Guild! We encourage you to submit articles for publication in theJournal.

Even if you have not been published before, we encourage you to submit a query if you have agreat idea, technique, case study or practice to share with your peers in the e-Learning community.If your topic idea for an article is selected by the editors, you will be asked to submit a completearticle on that topic. Don’t worry if you have limited experience writing for publication. Our team ofeditors will work with you to polish your article and get it ready for publication in the Journal.

By sharing your expertise with the readers of the Journal, you not only add to the collectiveknowledge of the e-Learning community, you also gain the recognition of your peers in the industryand your organization.

How to Submit a QueryIf you have an idea for an article, please submit your article idea by:

• Sending an email to Bill Brandon at bill@eLearningGuild.com.

• Include the following information in your query email message:

1: The title of the article.2: What will the article be about? What is the issue/problem that will be addressed?3: Why is this issue important to the reader? Industry?4: Why are you the one to tell this story? 5: List your contact information (name, job title, company, phone,

email). This information should be for the WRITER of the article. NO agents please.

• Limit the information above to approximately one page.

If the topic appears to be of interest, we will ask you to submit an article. Refer towww.eLearningGuild.com for more details.

Become a member today — FREE! Join online at www.eLearningGuild.com.

GetPublishedin...