|
Review
Design of E-Learning Courses: Lessons from Custom Content Winners,
Excellence in E-Learning Awards
brandon-hall.com, July 2003
Author: Jacques LeCavalier and the staff of brandon-hall.com
Review by Dr. Matthew Fox, Epic Group plc
With the vast range of e-learning suppliers around, how do you
get a sense of the way each company's offering stacks up? Brandon-Hall's
Excellence in E-learning report is a great place to start.
The report gives access to opinions on a cross section of award
winners in the custom content category of their 2002 awards. And
the real bonus is that you get to see extracts from the content
for the majority of the winning entries as part of the deal.
This year's report reviewed 53 entries judged by 46 independent
judges, the only downside for UK readers being that the content
winners were completely US-focused. Having said that, with much
innovation coming from the States, this report does provide a valuable
opportunity to benchmark UK providers' output and see if it stands
up to scrutiny.
It also gives an interesting overview of the US custom content
market. Brandon-Hall's view of the latter is that:
* organisations are cutting back on rich media delivery
* there is greater emphasis on higher impact but shorter learning
interactions
* simulations are increasingly seen as the learning model of choice
with more cost effective tools becoming available to develop them
* the use of story and narrative is becoming increasingly important
* the use of online 'human agents' to personalise learning is becoming
more frequent
The report also highlights the fact that two winners this year
come from the not-for-profit sector and speculates that this could
be a good area for growth.
The content in each winning programme is reviewed against eight
categories:
* business problem and results
* instructional design and integrity
* evaluation and assessment
* interactivity
* usability and interface
* motivation and aesthetics
* media and technology
* money and time constraints
The report allows you to delve quite deeply into what makes these
effective learning programmes. As well explaining viewpoints with
screen shots, there are judge's specific comments to illustrate
their opinions (for example 'inspirational without being preachy')
or on occasion designers' comments too, with the outcomes of user
testing and prototyping reported. Generally, each judging criterion
is commented succinctly with examples - and being able to see extracts
on-line really is a boon. But for some reviews the business performance
problem is not discussed at all. This is a shame, as in a sense
the business performance problem and how effectively it was addressed
is the most interesting area for those investing in e-learning.
You might have produced a highly creative programme with an intuitive
interface and good assessment strategies - but if it doesn't make
any difference to the behaviours or performance of the individuals
or organisation then it surely represents something of a wasted
investment. The report could go further in identifying and analysing
the business issues addressed by these programmes rather than focusing
exclusively on factors like instructional design, assessment, interactivity,
navigation etc.
So what of the programmes reviewed? Space prohibits us from covering
more here than a representative example; Gold Award winner Unilever's
'Should I put that in writing?' programme, developed by Midi Inc.
This programme is all about training employees in the risks of committing
inappropriate words to paper in terms of potential litigation or
exposure to the organisation.
While the interface is a little unconventional and sometimes eccentric
in its positioning of elements, the programme offers some good options
for users around different bandwidth constraints. Even viewing the
56k modem option with simple audio and graphics made for an engaging
learning experience. The scenarios are rooted in reality and the
report accurately analyses the strengths of the approach. The report
draws attention to the programme's contextualised learning with
clear routes to transfer knowledge to the workplace by forcing learners
to use their judgement and knowledge to make relevant business decisions.
One observation that we would make is that in the sample content
viewed, there is no need to justify your decision making - there
are no exercises that really need you to reflect on your thinking.
Also, it would be important to get learners to try out writing appropriate
business communications too: sometimes the choices offered are simply
not challenging enough. With common sense dictating appropriate
responses, the programme may not embed the skills and behaviours
required in the business deeply enough.
One aspect that works very well in the programme is the use of
'consequences' type scenarios which show the impact of poor decision
making on both the business and individual. These court room litigation
scenes leave learners with a strong emotional charge at the end
of the programme. Throughout, the report justifies its opinions
and observations with clear citation of examples, including screens
and text from the programme.
So is it worth investing in Brandon-Hall's report? If nothing else,
reviewing programmes considered to be the cutting edge of US developed
bespoke content development has immense value. It shows how expectations
of the market are developing and how increasingly sophisticated
buyers and learners are becoming. As a set of signposts for what
constitutes good e-learning across a set of relevant criteria, then
the report also serves a useful purpose. Buyers and developers alike
will benefit from the insights and observations from the judging
panel.
A few words of criticism? None of these programmes is perfect -
it would be good to see where the judges viewed areas for improvement
and what suggestions they had. Otherwise, maybe it feels a little
too congratulatory, without the balance of some debate or challenge
around analyses. It would be good, as part of that analysis, also
to see what differentiates a bronze winner from a gold winner -
these differences don't stand out enough in the report. Also, as
mentioned above, the omission of enough data or even acknowledgement
of the business performance issue being addressed is a weakness,
although the commercial sensitivity of such information might well
have been a factor in its non-appearance here.
That said, the report still makes for an insightful and valuable
read!
|
