Ideas for lively e-learning

Happy action mapping users say that the model helps them create lively elearning. But would it fit into your design workflow?

Action mapping makes stakeholders work together to analyze the performance problem, commit to the same measurable goal, and agree to focus on activities rather than information. This can be a big change to the typical course development workflow.

Without action mapping:

1. The client says, “I need a course.”
2. You say, “Okay.”
3. The client gives you a pile of content, the phone number of a subject matter expert (SME), and a deadline.
4. You create a detailed storyboard or script, getting information as necessary from the SME. The structure of the information determines the structure of the course.
5. The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
6. The course is made available and your job is done.

Using action mapping:

1. The client says, “I need a course.”
2. You say, “Great. Let’s get together to make sure we all understand what you want the course to accomplish.”
3. You schedule a two-hour meeting in a space with a whiteboard or in a virtual meeting room where you can share a mind-mapping screen. You include the client, at least one subject matter expert, and possibly others from the table below.
4. In that meeting, you identify your business goal and how you’ll measure success. You also identify the behaviors needed to reach that goal.
5. As a group, you analyze why the behaviors aren’t happening, confirm that training will actually solve the problem, and identify how the training will be supported by managers, workplace changes, and other improvements.
6. After the meeting, you work with the SME and possibly others to brainstorm and prototype practice activities for each behavior needed to reach the goal. Ideally, you test the prototypes on learners.
7. You get approval for the prototypes from the client.
8. You work with the SME and possibly others to identify the minimum information necessary to complete each activity and decide how it should be provided.
9. You create a storyboard or script. The content has already been identified in the action map; you’re just filling in the details and arranging the material. The activities determine the organization of the course.
10. The client and SME approve the script and you go into production.
11. Once the material is being used by learners, you or the client begins measuring its impact, and you revise it as necessary.

The above list makes it look like action mapping takes longer, and it will take longer if you’re not doing much analysis now. However, the rest of the process can actually go more quickly than conventional course design. You save time by:

• Not creating a course when it isn’t necessary or won’t help
• Addressing only the specific behaviors that need to change
• Excluding unnecessary information
• Taking advantage of easily updated job aids
• Designing activities that test multiple areas of knowledge at once
• Creating tightly focused materials that don’t waste learners’ time

Who should be included?

The table below lists the four steps of action mapping and identifies who you might consider including at each step. The first two steps can often be covered in one two-hour meeting, if the client and SME are familiar with the learners and the performance problem.

One of the goals in action mapping is to identify what information needs to be memorized (put in the course) and what can be referenced on the job (put in job aids). Often, existing job aids are created and “owned” by someone in a different department. That person might be your SME, or they might be someone else. They need to be included in some of your planning to make sure the job aid can be used as you want, to approve any changes to it, and to offer their ideas about incorporating it into practice activities.

Step Client SME Job aid
owner Learner Graphics/Flash
person 1: Set goal Yes Yes Maybe No No 2: Identify behaviors & why they’re not happening Yes Yes Maybe No No 3: Brainstorm practice activities Approve prototypes Help brainstorm or at least approve prototypes Help brainstorm or at least approve use of job aid Provide ideas, feedback on prototypes Help create prototypes 4: Identify necessary info No Yes Approve use of job aid or changes to it Maybe, as tester No

What works for you?

I’ve added the above information to the Elearning Blueprint, where it’s easy to update. So please tell me: What did I forget? What processes have worked best for you?

Also, a reminder: I’ll be leading a two-day certificate program in instructional design for elearning on Feb. 11-12 at the Training conference in Atlanta. Use code CATMN to get a $150 discount on your registration. I hope to see you there!

Be sure to read this paragraph. It tells you that in this post, you’ll learn how to manage stakeholders who want to treat learners like idiots. If you have trouble reading the paragraph, click the speaker icon located in the bottom right-hand corner of this screen and a professional narrator will read the text to you in a soothing voice that slides like oil over any functioning brain cells and gently smothers them.

Now read the next paragraph.

“Assume intelligence,” Jerry Weissman tells us in Presentations in Action. “Your audience has been there, done that, and they get it.”

Contrast Weissman’s advice with what your stakeholders might be telling you, or what a small voice might be saying in your head.

• “We should tell them how to navigate the course.”
• “We should define ‘safety’ to make sure everyone knows what we mean.”
• “We should explain that they’re about to be shown a story in which a character will have to make a decision, and they’re going to make the decision for that character.”

We’re all adults here

If you’re designing for the corporate world, which is what I focus on in this blog, your learners have decades of experience figuring out what buttons do, reading text on a screen, and interpreting what’s happening to them as it happens.

Unfortunately, stakeholders might focus on the possible exception, the one person who can’t figure out that a button pointing to the right will move them forward and who will sit staring at the first screen until the lights get turned off.

A common solution is to provide optional help: a tab called “How to navigate this course,” links to definitions, and optional popup explanations like, “This is a fictional activity. You will pretend to be a person who is facing a challenge…”

A sign of a deeper problem

Unfortunately, stakeholders or small voices saying that you need to guide learners by the nose are symptoms of a deeper issue that can poison your materials, regardless of your optional help tabs.

Thanks to our experience in school, when we’re put in a “teaching” role, we make these assumptions:

Learners know nothing. Our job is to insert knowledge into their brains without considering any knowledge that might already be there.

Learners can’t be trusted. They can’t be allowed to skip what they already know, and they must be told explicitly what’s right and wrong because they can’t draw conclusions from experience or stories.

These assumptions deny the adulthood of our learners. When these assumptions shape instruction, we create boring materials that sound like a patronizing parent.

Under the weight of such disrespect, any motivation the learners might have had squirms briefly and dies.

What to do

Remind stakeholders that learners are adults: Send them to the excellent rebuttals that Geeta Bose provides in IDiot: “I’m not an idiot!”

Get everyone on your team to agree that you’re designing an experience, not information. Visit the linked page to find posts that will help you design so your learners learn from experience.

Let learners place out. Start with simulations or scenarios that require learners to make the kinds of decisions they need to make in real life. If a learner proves that they can consistently make the right decisions, let them go.

Show, don’t tell. When a learner makes a poor decision, use the feedback to show them the results of their decision so they can conclude on their own that what they did was sub-optimal. Then, if necessary, show them what they need to know — or, better, put them in an easier scenario with more help and ratchet up the difficulty more slowly.

What has worked for you? Let us know in the comments!

February elearning design certificate

I’ll be presenting a two-day workshop on elearning design at the Training conference in Atlanta on February 11-12. Use discount code CATMN to save $150 on your registration.

Often we’re told, “Put this information into a course.” But what happens if we put the information into a job aid instead, and then design mini-scenarios that help learners use the job aid?

This approach not only keeps boring blather out of our elearning, it can also make our activities more memorable. Here’s how it could work.

Example

Let’s say we’re designing a course on needle safety for a hospital. A common approach would be to display some slides of information about dos and don’ts, and then to present a generic fact check, like, “What’s the best way to dispose of a used needle?”

Instead, we’ll plunge our learners directly into an activity that somewhat simulates real life and that includes real-life job aids. So here’s the first thing learners see in this module.

We’re tempting the learner to respond without thinking, but we’ve also given them access to more information. For example, the learner could click the first thumbnail to see the safety poster that appears in every examining room and that explains what to do with a needlestick injury.

But our sample learner thinks, “Everyone knows you pour Betadine on that kind of wound,” and they choose that without looking at any other information.

Here’s the feedback we give them.

The feedback describes the results of the learner’s choice, letting the learner conclude that they were wrong. It also includes a snippet of the safety poster, pointing out where the learner should have looked. The learner sees for themselves that they not only skipped a step, they also used the wrong washing method.

Why did we do this?

Even though the safety poster appears in every room, we suspect that people aren’t looking at it, because they’re making basic mistakes with needles. So our course not only corrects the common mistakes but repeatedly reminds learners of the job aids they should be using.

And, importantly, this approach lets us surprise learners with their own mistakes. If we first listed a bunch of rules, including “Wash needlestick injuries with soap and water,” the learner might be mildly surprised, thinking, “What, not Betadine?” But by letting the learner give Magda Hepatitis C, we’ve surprised them more vividly and, ideally, will help them remember their mistake the next time they accidentally jab themselves.

This is a very simple demonstration of how we can have learners practice using job aids. For more complex procedures, we could have learners refer to the job aid as they carry out each step, showing the results of each decision in a realistic way.

Upcoming webinar for Australasia

I’ll talk more about scenarios in a one-hour online presentation for the Elearning Network of Australasia. The event happens Tuesday, Oct. 18, at 10 AM Sydney time (convert to your local time). Join us in this Blackboard Collaborate room.