Ways e-Learning Course Differs From a PPT Presentation?

[eQuixotic]

Originally Posted by GerryWaz

And maybe some software companies . . .

Heh! Me, I can't wait for Word 2023 - "Now with cold-fusion-powered spellchecking, scented font rendering, and three-dimensional holographic SmartArt!"

[David Anderson]

@Chris - Shhhh, you're under NDA (but the scented fonts do rock)

[eQuixotic]

Originally Posted by GerryWaz

So I'm still strugging to present SMEs and newbies a "50,000 foot view of differences between telling and training."

Isn't good training really just good telling? And vice versa?

I think the reason we try so hard to differentiate eLearning from PowerPoint is because we've all seen so much horrible PowerPoint over the years that we desperately want to rebrand our eLearning just to avoid the stigma. But some of the best "eLearning" courses I've seen were simply really, really engaging presentations.

And some of the most "interactive" eLearning courses I've seen ultimately just annoyed and frustrated me.

It's all in the delivery.

When you hear a life-changing keynote speaker, you didn't learn because the session was interactive. You learned because the speaker shared information in a deeply compelling way, and made an emotional connection with you while doing so.

Clicks and clacks are secondary to the "telling."

IMHO. YMMV. ETC.

[eQuixotic]

Originally Posted by David Anderson

@Chris - Shhhh, you're under NDA (but the scented fonts do rock)

Ahhhhh, Helvetica. *deep inhalation*

Wait, did I say too much?

[GerryWaz]

Hmmm, intrestng ideas . . . it tells a story that you can relate to.

Re: NDA's--you mean we can't talk about Articulate Presenter 2018, code named "Justin's Revenge."

[joe2008]

When you hear a life-changing keynote speaker, you didn't learn because the session was interactive. You learned because the speaker shared information in a deeply compelling way, and made an emotional connection with you while doing so.

I generally agree with almost everything Equixotic says, but I wonder whether this overstates the case a bit. I can certainly get inspired by an emotional connection with a presenter, and I might be motivated to change my perspective or to learn more about a subject, but I am not sure if I would really learn how to do something based purely on an emotional connection with the speaker. For that, I would have to interact with the content, both that which is presented in the course, and, more importantly, that which isn't (if learners can't generalize to new material, it is doubtful whether they really learned something).

I think the distinction Tom made somewhere between "push" and "pull" courses is useful in this regard. Presentations (whether PowerPoint or lectures) often push the content to the student. Evaluation is then often based on whether the viewer can push the content back without any loss. Learning objectives are often implicitly framed as "viewer will learn about topic x). General problem is that such courses remain tied to the pedagogical context and don't prepare the viewer to perform without specific directives (i.e., specific questions on a test). In so-called real-life, decisions have to be made without these initial directives (options do become limited as consequences of certain decisions become apparent). Trick is to get students to anticipate these consequences beforehand, to better improve their decision-making ability).

Pull courses are ideally better suited to this latter task, because they require more interaction with the content, and better mimic real-life situations. (I think an example Tom gave somewhere was the simple question, "Jane tripped in the office and sprained her ankle. What do you do?"). The problem I have seen with most "interactive" versions of this type of question is that they give you three options to select from, most of which could be eliminated solely by common sense (Option A: tell her to go back to work. Option B . . . ). Having to select obvious answers is a bit tedious, so I can see the annoyance factor. It's not even clear they would lead to learning, since in a pressure-situation I might not remember what my options even are. In a synchronic environment, one could solicit answers without offering options beforehand, and then provide feedback. It's harder to do this in an asynchronic environment, but I think that is whether the interaction comes in: again, it's not interaction with the navigational structure of the course (click a, b, or c), but interaction with the content. (By the by, I like the Engage interactions, but I think they tend to promote the former rather than the latter).

My advice to new teachers has always been, "shift your emphasis from what you want to tell your students to what you want your students to be able to do." To do this, begin with the assessment (what do you want students to do, and how will be you be able to tell if they know how to do it?) and then work backwards so that what you do in the course prepares them to accomplish this goal. Most of the time, new teachers only think of assessment after they create the lecture, so of course the assessement is based on what they say in the lecture. I think dynamic speakers/good narration can lead to better outcomes on assessment based upon what trainer/teacher tells the student; I am not sure it would lead to better outcomes for what we want students to be able to do after the course is over.

John Biggs and Catherine Tang's *Teaching for Quality Learning at University* might be a useful source to consult, even though is directed to higher education.

Sorry for the long post. I've been thinking about this issue a lot recently.
Joe

[eQuixotic]

Originally Posted by joe2008

I generally agree with almost everything Equixotic says, but I wonder whether this overstates the case a bit. I can certainly get inspired by an emotional connection with a presenter, and I might be motivated to change my perspective or to learn more about a subject, but I am not sure if I would really learn how to do something based purely on an emotional connection with the speaker.

You're absolutely right, Joe, and I'm certainly overstating the case depending on the topic. My comment would be more applicable to a course on, for example, motivational leadership than, say, a step-by-step tutorial on how to fabricate a widget using the new Wizco 9000.

Your excellent "push" and "pull" description qualifies my statement in a way I should have.

That said, as a learner, I still can discern the impact of (and ultimately depend on) an engaging (and human) delivery style, regardless of the topic. For instance, this excellent screencast of the Mac to-do application Things:

Things - task management on the Mac

The excellent visuals, the pace, the narration style: these things combine to effectively teach me the basics of this software without any interactivity at all. I'm confident I could download this app and start using it without any type of "Now click the X button" interactive training. Because I did.

They could have easily built a Captivate-like simulation of this app, holding me by the hand in a click here/click there exercise, but for my learning style, the approach they used is much more effective.

(Most might consider this particular example a sales or marketing piece, but to me it's still eLearning.)

The lack of humanity in eLearning, whether it be "push" or "pull," is what typically kills it for me. This does not have to be.

[David Anderson]

Originally Posted by eQuixotic

The lack of humanity in eLearning, whether it be "push" or "pull," is what typically kills it for me. This does not have to be.

Quote of the week!

[joe2008]

As a quick follow-up to this discussion, here is something by Cathy Moore that uncannily discusses what I was trying to get at.

Why you want to focus on actions, not learning objectives Making Change

By the by, I second Dave's nomination for quote of the week.

Joe