Getting Instructional Design Closer to the Business

August 16, 2014 1 comment

I am constantly amazed by instructional designers that think that “training” is what they do, rather than “help businesses”, and ignore some of the norms of business behaviour and thinking.

So – here’s 5 things you can do to get closer to business.

Articulate Challenge – Audio Setup and Tips

August 5, 2014 Leave a comment

Quick post - my entry for this weeks Articulate Elearning Challenge – audio tips and tricks.

A really GREAT thread appearing on the Challenges page, superb hints and tips for anyone wanting to try voiceover on an eLearning course.

Learning Technique – from the window of a high street butcher, (warning, contains pork).

August 1, 2014 Leave a comment

I was walking to a client earlier this week, and I passed an old-fashioned high street butchers shop. On the window was an advert which read “Pork…it’s tasty…try some now!

I laughed to myself, thinking about the simplicity and almost child-like communication. How “quaint”. 7 hours later, after a heavy day of Articulate Storyline examples and semantic juggling, I walked back to the station, once again passing the same advert.

It was a GREAT example of learning technique

  • State the case for something to your learners – “Pork…
  • Explain the potential benefits to the user – “…it’s tasty
  • State the solution to an assumed problem (lack of pork), with a specific behavioural action – “…try some now

I had just spent a day largely doing just this – taking words and messages, and simplifying them with/for a client into learner actions. Perhaps we should all, occasionally, look back to the past to see where we are going.

In the interests of keeping the “pork” theme going – I remembered a simple flowchart I once produced using Articulate Storyline – so I’ll leave you with the “Should I Eat Bacon” flowchart“.Portrait of a pig

Forget the eLearning authoring tool, remember the audience

July 26, 2014 Leave a comment

Last week I was invited by a Marketing department to review their proposed eLearning. They were concerned at the constant re-education needed for sales people – “…they just don’t remember what we teach them”.

Their use of Articulate Storyline was excellent, branching, layers, states, and so on – so why wasn’t the training being successful?

Over the first couple of hours, they mentioned, several times, that “…what we do is very complex”, and their aim was to try and get salespeople to “expert” level. In this case, this was a valid requirement, salespeople do need expert-level knowledge to perform a consulting role for clients.

Using a flipchart, I showed them that what they DO is actually very simple, using about 3 squares, 3 symbols, and two arrows. What was complex was HOW they did that – they had never put all the complex facts into a simple overall framework. Their teaching had no framework, and I suspect that this is why sales never remembered anything.

Their role, as Marketing was to be “sales support”, and I think they had just become the “sales confusion department”.

I received an email the next day, and I quote “… I can see now the importance of thinking from the end-user perspective and also to try to keep the content to a minimum and use illustrations, videos etc. to keep things interesting rather than bombarding the viewer with words.” That is partly true, as it also needs to be relevant and meet sales’ ends, but they made a huge leap forward.

When faced by the “classic SME” situation, be prepared to challenge, and talk in business-related language. Get out of your comfort zone. They wanted to know how to use Articulate Storyline more effectively. I explained how to run their business more effectively, using Storyline as one of the tools to get there, and they will now create courses, (and job aids…) so much for effectively because of that.

The perfect formula for eLearning

July 23, 2014 Leave a comment

Here’s a link to a Guest Blog I made earlier today, some thoughts on “perfect” eLearning.

If such a thing exists.

The science of Umami, and why Instructional Designers should care.

July 22, 2014 1 comment

I cooked a steak for supper yesterday, and finished off the mushroom, onions and red wine sauce with some umami powder.

Some what?

Umami – the taste of “savoury meatiness”, found in parmesan cheese, lemon peel, mushrooms, and synthesized as monosodium glutamate, or “flavour enhancer”.

Scientifically identified in 1908, yet we still mainly teach that there are 4 tastes – sweet, salty, sour and bitter. Why over 100 years later is the term still in its infancy?

What’s this got to do with Instructional Design?

Well…

We still talk about “learning styles” – perhaps they should just be viewed as preferences?

Many people still let SMEs give us bullet points, but how often do we explain what bullet points ACTUALLY ARE? (…how many of us know?)

We still mainly “tell” in courses, rather than let people discover their errors, and then learn how to solve problems. We are scared of people feeling as though they “failed”, (even if they DID, but we then explain WHY and let them practice for success, in a safe, online environment).

How long will it be before we have the courage, as a profession, to constantly and assertively let our Subject Matter Experts and customers know that there IS another way, that there is an alternative to linear courses?

Changing perceptions and comfort zones is a hard road to follow, but it IS our job to do it. Challenging can be scary, especially when the next invoice is riding on it, but ultimately, it is HUGELY rewarding, both for us, and our clients.

 

Sourcing #freelancers from “…the Crowd”, or “…from individuals IN the Crowd”?

July 10, 2014 Leave a comment

I was recently at an event looking at how to use a “Crowdsourcing model” for #eLearning. Broadly, there seemed to be 2 perspectives.

  1. “Crowdsourcing is a way for groups of networked individuals in a Crowd to create content for clients, and the crowd benefits”.
  2. “A Crowd enables clients to quickly assess individual skills in the group, and choose individuals for their projects”.

The first focused on benefits for the Crowd, the second focused on benefits for individuals IN a Crowd environment. I see the second option as more valid and workable. Like Star Trek – we are still individuals, and do not have a Borg “Hive-mind”, (yet!)

The Crowd (for me) is a way to link people with similar skills and aspirations, and make that accessible to clients. The end activity may not benefit the entire group, there is still a “competitive” element. Even Crowd funding still only benefits the ones that successfully.

These 2 positions were amplified in a discussion on Portfolios.

I suggested they should be on a subject of the Crowd member’s choosing, of a fixed length. Everyone would have a similar chance to shine, demonstrating their talents and vision to prospects. Some people recommended the subject should be what “the creator was passionate about”, such as a sport. I am just not convinced by this argument. Do commercial prospects REALLY want to see this?

Another view was that Portfolios should show the “skills of the Crowd” – benefitting “the whole”. I do not see this as workable or scalable. A “portfolio by committee” could be a huge and lengthy undertaking, and secondly, as soon as (say…) another 100 people join the crowd, you would have to repeat the process again.

In any herd (real or virtual) – there are leaders and followers. In any online community there are “lurkers” and “doers”. Being in a Crowd does not guarantee anyone will require the skill you offer, Crowds, for me, benefit the member IF they possess skills the rest of the herd need, and it becomes a skill-exchange from people with known skills and shared values. As they become more prevalent, the skill as I see it, is joining the correct group/community.

The Crowd provides benefits to clients if they reduce purchase time, and provide access to a community of tried and tested (?) individuals. If I were a client, I would want the Crowd to demonstrate diversity of approach, so that I could choose what I thought would work. I would just not be interested in “the Crowd” as an entity. If I audition for 4 different voiceovers I need for some eLearning, I do not want people to audition as a Barber-Shop Quartet unless I specify it. I want to use the Crowd to provide me with INDIVIDUALS as options.

I do not see a model where the Crowd benefits everyone in that Crowd, especially for eLearning. This is still a market where the INDIVIDUAL is what matters, not a Crowd of individuals. Perhaps an individual like me then goes as a client TO the Crowd, and chooses a few people to help them, but I am still unsure of how the Crowd works as a concept other then this.

I just can’t see the Crowd benefiting everyone in it. It’s another mechanism to benefit the (single) Buyer, and the few SINGLE individuals in the Crowd that end up servicing the project.

Please help me understand more – am I missing something?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 577 other followers

%d bloggers like this: