Subscribe

Your email:

More from Allen Interactions:

UpcomingWebinar
5myths(2)

 ZEBRAZAPPS

CS&DM(2)

WhitePapers(2)

Connect with Us!

Facebookdescribe the imagedescribe the image

e-Learning Leadership Blog

Current Articles | RSS Feed RSS Feed

Analyze This: 5 Questions You Need to Ask

  
  
  

describe the imageby Ethan Edwards, chief instructional strategist

The standard accepted methodology for designing instruction, including e-learning, is still centered solidly on the ADDIE process…a time-honored methodology composed of five steps--Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation.  I’m a strong proponent of the idea that the inherent linearity of this process creates huge obstacles to coming up with highly-engaging interactivity in e-learning. 

It isn’t that these tasks are necessarily wrong; rather, it’s that design for e-learning needs to be more exploratory and experimental in approach instead of prescriptive.  At Allen Interactions we do our designing using a iterative, rapid-prototyping approach to creating effective instruction.  Many training groups are beginning to modify ADDIE to include some flexibility, but generally it doesn’t seem to me that it’s far enough to effectively design really engaging interactions. 

CheckboxesBut whether you are using ADDIE or Rapid Prototyping, the success of a project will often rest on the kind of analysis activities carried out.  When I ask students about some of the weaknesses or failures they’ve experienced in implementing ADDIE in creating e-learning, a very common response is that too little emphasis is placed on analysis—or that sometimes analysis is effectively skipped altogether.  Often, subject matter has been pre-screened through the eyes of a subject matter expert, or worse yet, the content already exists in PowerPoint displays for an instructor led course, and the belief is that Analysis is already complete. 

Unfortunately, analysis carried out by dedicated SMEs often is completely content bound.  Focus is entirely on content knowledge goals without addressing aspects of how the knowledge is applied.  And analysis done for ILT usually didn’t have the particular strengths of e-learning—individualization, user-control, and judgment-free activity—in mind when investigating the content.

You’ll still probably need to do some of the standard analysis questions to filter and organize scope effectively, but regardless of what else is asked in analysis, I propose these 5 questions as those most critical for making effective e-learning even possible.

The 5 Most Important Analysis Questions You’ll Ever Ask:

1. What do you expect learners to be able to DO after completing the course that they can’t do now?

Don’t listen to “They need to know this, and they need to know this, and they need to know this, blah, blah, blah”  talk.  (Well, you probably have to listen to it, but don’t pay much attention.)  This approach usually represents somewhat thoughtless thinking, and if actually it were true, it’s likely that e-learning isn’t even your best option for dealing with it.  Be precise about specific performance outcomes and relentless in pruning content that doesn’t directly support those desired behaviors.

2. What are the consequences TO THE LEARNER if the learner fails to master the intended outcomes?

Often times, initial analysis identifies consequences of failure for the organization.,  While these are certainly important and might be the justification for funding the project, don’t assume that the same drivers have equal significance for the learner.  This information will be critical in setting Context for every interaction, and often can be an inspiration for elements of risk (and Challenge) for bringing the interaction to life.

3. Insist on an active demonstration, a detailed simulation, or an opportunity to directly observe the desired performance.  (ok…sorry this isn’t a question, but I’m sure you’ll make sense of it anyway.)

Until you can see the intended performance executed in the real environment, it is easy to overlook some critical complexities that are masked by the logical structuring of content.  We were recently working with a client to create a course on driver safety.  The content was a straightforward six-step process, and each step was completely understandable and seemingly easy (e.g., “slow down,” “look both ways,” etc.)  Reviewing that orderly content totally failed to capture the difficulty of the challenge.  It wasn’t until we rigorously put that plan into play in a real situation and analyzed the errors that we were able to grasp that the real difficulty wasn’t in knowing the steps, but in  making the learners so fluent and prepared that they could execute the steps flawlessly almost simultaneously without any question or delay.

4. What specific performance mistakes do new learners regularly make?

This question is essential for designing the right challenge and the right actions in your interactions.  Learners mainly learn from the mistakes they make;  if they can’t actually make during training the kind of mistakes they tend to make on the job, the e-learning is unlikely to have any effect on the problems that your organization is probably suffering from most.  Again, this information is absolutely essential for deciding on Actions and corresponding Feedback incorporated into your design.

5.What tools, resources, job aids, or help do successful performers (or even experts) use to do these tasks?

Often times a training task is made more difficult than necessary because the learning environment is made more difficult than even the performance environment simply because in a frenzy to “test” the learner, the design withholds basic information that even the most proficient performers use regularly.  Equally as important as teaching the skills desired, is making sure the learner is aware of all the tools and resources to be used as support to make success more likely.

If you are dedicated to investigating these questions and really listening to the answers, I’m certain that you will have the basic ingredients needed to begin designing true Instructional Interactivity.

Comments

Ethan - your post is perfectly timed. I've just struggled through trying to apply an ADDIE-type model to a course I'm currently working on and was horribly frustrated. Three of these questions/actions are what I'm already doing so validates those parts of the process. Question 4 is a revelation. I think that information may already be included by the materials provided by the SMEs, but will pursue if not. On question 2, I'm not quite fully grasping the idea. Will you provide some examples? Thanks again for your timely, validating, and valuable post! This will go into my personal "E-Learning Manual" for future reference.
Posted @ Friday, April 15, 2011 1:52 PM by Victoria Aleman
Thanks for this post. Your observation that the common complaint centers around the lack (or insufficiency) of analysis completely resonates with me. Seems to me that the reason people feel analysis gets missed is that they buy into the whole "ADDIE is a linear model" idea. In my experience, analysis does happen - recursively, though. At some point in at least one of the cycles, it occurs to somebody that the product isn't going to be able to deliver on the genuine need, based on the agreed-upon product specs. And that leads to the other big complaint in development: "the requirements keep changing!" By asking these key questions - and continuing to ask them throughout, at least the changes are purposeful.
Posted @ Friday, April 15, 2011 2:25 PM by Bonnie Taylor
Regarding question 2: Great observation about overlooking the learner in favor of the organization. And when it comes to setting context, using the WIIFM construct (i.e., "What's in it for me?") appropriately is the key to effective integrated feedback, too. I am so tired of feedback that appeals only to the content instead of to the learner. So instead of feedback that essentially says, "That's incorrect. The correct answer is A." [me: yeah, so, who cares!?!] maybe something like "That's incorrect. If you didn't respond with [insert context of answer A here], that means you're at risk for ..." and so on. [me: Oooh, I need to remember this!] Give the feedback to the learner to internalize, essentially putting him/her into the question under consideration. This provides more genuine interactivity with the content than "Click Next to continue" ever could.
Posted @ Friday, April 15, 2011 2:40 PM by Bonnie Taylor
Good points as usual Ethan! 
 
Point #2 is particularly appropriate. By putting learners into the "real world" and experiencing the consequences of their errors, it makes it more likely that the correct actions are internalized. 
 
The biggest question is: "If I make this decision on the job, what would/could happen?" For example, if making a poor choice would lead to someone being injured, then have a character in the training get hurt. If the good choice allows someone to make a product faster/better, show an increase in production/profits because of it.
Posted @ Friday, April 15, 2011 3:04 PM by Greg Scheelar
This is a timely reminder. We often get so wrapped up with deadlines that what could be an excellent product becomes "good enough." Question no. 4 - What mistakes do new learners make - is a great one.  
 
To often, in the eyes of SMEs and managers, the objective is to get people trained. They don't realize that the true objective is to enable learners to do the job correctly and accurately.
Posted @ Monday, April 18, 2011 9:23 AM by David Gardner
I think your question 4 is incredibly valuable and a missing step in many instructional design processes. It's obvious to think about how to share the information effectively, but it's too easy to hit "publish" once you've gone through that process. The best courses attack the problem spots and hurdles before they have time to become hurdles! Thanks for the reminder.
Posted @ Monday, April 18, 2011 12:18 PM by Kelly Meeker
Victoria...you asked for a little clarification about question #2: ":What are the consequences TO THE LEARNER if the learner fails to master the intended outcomes?" One always sees ways to improve one's writing after the fact, and what this should have included is "What are the REAL WORLD consequences to the learner..." etc. Too many e-learning programs rely on artificial and ultimately meaningless consequences to motivate the learner. If the only conseuence is an arbitrary score that only has meaning in the LMS, that consequence doesn't have much staying power. 
 
What you want to do, when possible, is to incorporate into the e-learning activites some believable representation of real-life consequences that will mean something to the learner more than such easily ignored consequences like “No, that is incorrect.” It’s somewhat straightforward to see this in process training, as mistakes can result in failure to achieve the desired outcome (like failed sales call, failed software process, failed mechanical task, etc.) 
 
It’s also really important (maybe more important) in policy and more open-ended sorts of training. Take, for instance, diversity training. Many organizations are required to do it and learners dismiss it as a waste of time. I think a big mistake is when the “factual” information is presented and tested, with the only consequence being a score or the need to redo it. The consequence should be tied to the results of failing to learn this content. The consequence of diversity failure will be most felt when an individual feels the personal effect of discrimination. This thinking might lead to a design where the learner first identifies themselves with a group (gender, age, national origin, etc.)—something that everyone can do, and then have business decisions made where the user’s ideas or happiness are effected by his or her particular characteristics…and then perhaps go back and identify the particular decisions that violated the diversity policy. This is just a quick sketch of an idea, but I do think the policy knowledge training delivered through this sort of training would have greater impact than a trivia quiz. 
Posted @ Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:20 PM by Ethan Edwards
Thank you, Ethan for the clarification. That and reading through the comments others shared made it clearer.
Posted @ Thursday, April 21, 2011 10:36 AM by Victoria Aleman
A bit unrelated, but I really wanted to ask.:) 
 
 
 
How do you evaluate outcomes for e-learning courses?
Posted @ Wednesday, May 04, 2011 10:52 AM by Kandi Thomas
Comments have been closed for this article.