Subscribe

Your email:

More from Allen Interactions:

5myths

ZEBRAZAPPS

describe the image

describe the image

WhitePapers

Connect with Us!

Facebookdescribe the imagedescribe the image

Posts by category

Posts by popularity

e-Learning Leadership Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

e-Learning Design: Less is More

Posted by Allen Interactions on Mon, Jun 21, 2010
  
  
  
Ethan Edwardsby Ethan Edwards, chief instructional strategist

"You can't teach people everything they need to know. The best you can do is position them where they can find what they need to know when they need to know it."  - Seymour Papert

These are words that most e-learning designers would do well to take to heart. One of the biggest problems with so much of the e-learning I encounter is that it is simply bloated with too much content.  I think this is a result of two primary factors:

 

  • Subject-matter experts demand that everything they know be included in the training for immediate mastery (forgetting that it probably took them 10-20 years to master that much content).
  • Designers are used to using actual training materials as "documentation," relying on classroom instructors to provide the filters for what really is necessary to learn. Learners working on their own can't make that judgment.

 

Overwhelmed

A really useful method I've found for deciding what to include is to first be very specific in deciding what immediate performance outcomes are expected from the training.  Then using these outcomes as a strict filter, separate the content into two buckets: "Need to Know" to achieve the performance outcome and just "Nice to Know."  Most people (including your SMEs) will be astonished at how much of what is viewed as essential content really is just "nice to know."  Then build your instruction around just the "Need to Know" content.  Usually, this turns out to be an achievable goal, even though the prospect of teaching the originally-proposed content scope would have been impossible (or at least unbearable).

In some cases, if circumstances require that all content be included for other reasons, then just put the "Nice to Know" content into a structured reference area, accessible to the learner via a "I'd like to learn more" button, but don't burden the learner with seemingly irrelevant content, and by no means should you be testing on it.

My own slant on the sentiment  expressed in the quote from Papert is to remind myself that the objective of most e-learning is not to create an Expert, but rather that make someone minimally competent.  True expertise must develop over time with experience and with extended interaction with knowledgeable colleagues.

Tags: , , , , ,

Comments

Excellent post. Though, to be sincere, we often follow the scheme “The more content, the more hours I sell”. This is also because counting sheets of content is an “objective” and practical means for calculating budgets even though, at the end, the learner gets bored.
Posted @ Monday, June 21, 2010 7:55 PM by Daniel Albarran
Very good thoughts if a learner is only going to access the course one time. If, however, the learner might access the course over time as the need to know or do something, then maybe more is more.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 22, 2010 6:26 AM by Rob Stevens
Rob, I couldn't agree with you more. There is immense value in providing access to information that will be accessed over time by the learner. But even doing that one must decide if the intent is to provide focused learning activities on demand or if it is to provide a useful reference tool for the learner to use and learn from when needed. If it's the former, I think the "less is more" approach still is essential--the designed learning experiences still need to be focused on specific performance outcomes without having that obscured by too much related-yet-not-helpful information. If, on the other hand, the usage over time is more as a reference initiated by the learner than specific teaching that involves evaluation and tracking, etc., than I think a structure more like Wikipedia that puts the learner in control would be more useful than typical e-learning structures of linear delivery of content with inserted questions. 
 
In truth, I think we need both.
Posted @ Tuesday, June 22, 2010 10:16 AM by Ethan Edwards
Very precise! After reading your posts, what came to my mind was the need to differentiate a training instrument from a material for reference such as a job-aid or EPSS(Electronic Performance Support System). I often think first about the performance goal and which instructional strategies will lead to the attainment of that goal. Helena Froyton
Posted @ Wednesday, June 23, 2010 3:20 PM by Helena Froyton
Ethan, 
 
Excellent article and very timely. I just finished the design of a new eLearning project that will teach how to be better problem solvers using our software and I did exactly as you described, so this was validation I didn't blow it. My focus was on reducing a two day talking head class down to the minimum needed to be somewhat proficient at the process and the software. (I got it down to 3-4 hours) I then added a lot of content to include videos and articles that the student can go to if they want more, but it is not required. They are also given the option of more exercises IF they want to, but again, not required. Since I am still new at this, I guess I was a good student and learned well in your class. I would like you take a look at the finished product someday.
Posted @ Monday, June 28, 2010 10:00 PM by Dean Gano
Comments have been closed for this article.