Are You Building the Right Type of E-Learning Course?

January 8th, 2008

Building an elearning course can be time-consuming and costly. Because of this you don’t want to waste your resources by making your elearning course more complex than it needs to be. Instead, your objective is to create the best elearning course you can with the limited resources you have.

Identify the Course’s Purpose

The intent of most elearning courses is to change performance. However, the type of course that’s usually built focuses on sharing information rather than performance improvements. This happens because most people focus on delivering content rather than on changing performance.

Your first step is to get your client focused on the real performance goals and then guide them to the right type of intervention. Sometimes it means they don’t need an elearning course. In that case you save time and money by not building the elearning course.

However, if they still need (or want) an elearning course, then determine what type of course they need. By identifying the type of course you are building, it’s easier to determine what resources you can commit.

Understand the Type of Course

elearn_types

Elearning courses typically focus one of two things: sharing information or changing performance. And, within that framework, there are basically three types of elearning courses.

Communicate information with no performance expectations. Information-based courses communicate new information but have no built-in expectations of changed performance. A good example is a course that highlights new features of a software application. You learn about the new the features but you aren’t required to do anything with this new information.
Give step-by-step instructions that have specific outcomes. These courses are focused on procedures and how to do something. They’re made up of repeatable tasks that are very close to what the learner will do at work. A good example is showing someone how to complete a worksheet or use software.
Share guidelines to help the learner solve problems. The most challenging courses to design are those where you teach principles or guidelines versus repeatable steps. You really have to understand the nuances of the learner’s situation and how the principles can be applied while respecting the fact that each application is somewhat unique.

All three types of courses can be as simple or complex in design as you want to make them. Keep in mind that the more complex the course is, the more time and effort it will take to build it.

Your best bet is to minimize the complexity and free your resources for the projects that are going to make the most impact.

Manage Your Resources Wisely

When you build your courses, use an approach that is appropriate to the type of elearning course you’re building. Just like my recent post on the elearning hierarchy, the goal is to free up your resources so that when you need to create the more complex work, the resources are available.

Here are a few tips to help manage your resources:

Reading is best done offline. Many elearning courses require a lot of reading. If most of your course is text-based, find a solution that best supports reading rather than building a course. Remember, the goal isn’t necessarily to create a course. Instead, it’s to deliver content that helps the user. This might be accomplished without a "course."

If you do need to create an elearning course, then build one that summarizes key points and then push the learner to a PDF or other format that is better for reading.
Teach people to find information rather than just giving it to them. I don’t know how many times I’ve worked on projects where all I did was reuse content that was already available on the company’s intranet. If that’s the case for your course, save time and money by just pointing people to the right resources.
Better yet, build your course on how to find the resource rather than just giving it to them. This is more performance-based and in the long run helps the learners find the information on their own, which might reduce the need for additional courses in the future.
Break the content into bite-sized pieces. If someone wants to know what time it is you don’t tell them how to build a clock. In a similar vein, too many elearning courses offer more than is needed.
If you break the course content into pieces, you can offer both the "need to know" and "nice to know" content. At the same time, the learner has the freedom to get what is needed.

I like to create "coursels" (as in course morsels) where the key content is broken into manageable chunks. I’ve built courses where the coursels are combined as a whole course, yet they are offered as separate links that work more like a web page structure than a traditional elearning course. The content is all in one place. There are distinct measurable courses. Yet, the user has quick access to the most critical information.
Keep the course simple and focused on its outcome. Too often we want to make a course "engaging and interactive" and yet it turns out to be a bloated product that takes more time to create and more than likely bores the learner anyway. Instead of getting cute with the project, make sure that it is focused and meets its objectives.
If the course is supposed to share information, give me the information. I don’t need a role playing scenario or play a Jeopardy game to get it. On the other hand, if I need to learn principles or guidelines, don’t just dump a bunch of information in my lap. Instead build a relevant case study or scenario and let me practice what I need to know.

To build good elearning courses means that you have to know what type of course you’re building and get the most out of your resources. Learn to differentiate between information and performance based courses. Then move your resources to those courses that are going to have the most impact.

21 responses to “Are You Building the Right Type of E-Learning Course?”

Anitha

January 8th, 2008

A lot depends on the interactivity level of the course too. I wanted to present guidelines for customer interaction with a real-time example. But the information in the example needs a scrollable/clickable Level 3 animation.

However, since the client wants a Level 1 course i have presented the examples in just a click and see interaction. So, instead of moving from example to concept, i am moving from concept to example.

In another principle-based course i had to clean up introductory learning animations for a screen into click-and-view stuff. This was to reduce the number of screens as per client request.

-Anitha

Simon Shirm

January 8th, 2008

Hi Tom,

I am really enjoying your blog, there is so much useful and practical content.

I work in the UK, mostly in the financial services sector where corporate responsibility for training is reinforced with regulation. Whilst I utterly endorse the principle of ‘teaching people to find information rather than giving it to them’, my e-learning projects often need to leave a very clear learning activity trail for both internal and external auditing, demonstrating that content has actually been consumed. Unfortunatley, this can become a bigger issue than developing the right type of course from the learners perspective.

I guess what I am saying here is that in some situations, the learner is not the only customer. It would be interesting to get your views in a future blog on satisfying the different customers in an e-learning project.

Thanks

Simon

Jennifer

January 8th, 2008

I love getting the Rapid e-learning clips in my email inbox. The brief, common sense-based articles provide me with additional support when trying to persuade upper management on specifics for our e-learning tasks.

Julie

January 8th, 2008

Why do you characterise using software in with completing a worksheet? When we use software we often have to make some very complex choices indeed. Those choices often influence how other people will work with our information.

As an example, I once worked with a group of people who said they needed help learning about Lotus 1-2-3 (it was a few years ago). It seems they were having a lot of trouble with word wrap when they wrote letters with it! Apparently the first person who created their form letters knew how to use a spreadsheet but didn’t know enough about word processing to use a mail merge. So from then on, everyone struggled with creating letters in a spreadsheet.

Using software effectively often requires decision making, and some of them can be very complex as well.

My $.02 cdn

tom

January 8th, 2008

Thanks for the comments and feedback.

I think Anitha’s comment reflects the need to be flexible.

Simon, your point is exactly what a lot of elearning idealists lose sight of. Sometimes the course isn’t about the learner. I discuss this in the ebook and have touched this in a few other posts, as well. I tell people that we are the bridge between the client and the learner. Both have distinct needs.

tom

January 8th, 2008

Good point, Julie. In the blog I was distinguishing between two types of performance-based courses. In the first type, you are teaching repeatable tasks that are consistent across the board for learners. Software is typically this type of training.

The other type of performance-based course is the type where the circumstances are going to be unique for each learner. Interacting with customers is a good example. I can teach you principles, but how you apply them might be different based on your customer interactions.

Going to your point, this doesn’t minimize that learning still requires complex decision-making.

Peter

January 8th, 2008

Tom,

How can I get Articulate run on a Mac computer?

tom

January 8th, 2008

One of our customers did a nice write up on how he uses Articulate with his Mac.

Paris G

January 8th, 2008

Thanks for your latest email. After 17 years of teaching experience, I agree completely with your advice. Focusing on the learner outcomes improves instructional design. I refer to Understanding by Design by Wiggins and McTighe.

tom

January 8th, 2008

Understanding by Design is a really good book. It’s a shame that many in the corporate world aren’t familiar with it. I actually built a case study around that book a while back. I reworked an elearning program design into something that was blended and focused on more of the social aspects of learning.

Sandipan Roy

January 8th, 2008

An excellent write-up, as always! I really enjoy your informative mails!

However, I do think that courses for sharing information are needed as much as courses for changing performance. And while information can easily be read offline, in any electronic format, building it in a e-learning course (which, essentially, is a movie), makes the experience mopre lucid, content organization more eaier to understand, and in the form of click ineractivities, more engaging.

Secondly, although I agree that many of times our clients do not need e-learning courses as solution, and as learning consultants we need to provide the true advice to our clients, I am not sure we can convey the same message to our clients. Because, this would only mean a loss of business for us, which, I am afraid, no one in the business can afford in this competitive market. Moreover, the training organization of the client organization has often its own target of quota of creating e-learning courses, and therefore, even if they accept such suggestion for one project, they would certainly look for another vendor for the next project.
I see this as a serious dilemma, and is looking forward to your views on this.

tom

January 9th, 2008

Hello Sandipan. I think you make some good points and bring in a perspective many people face at work when it comes to building courses. I am reminded of a place I worked that took on the task of being performance consultants so much so that they consulted themselves out of work:) They found a way to make every project a non-training project. Eventually clients quit coming to them because they knew they wouldn’t get their training done.

With that said, while there is a risk of losing work, I think that you increase your value when you’re able to move clients away from work that doesn’t have to be done. At least that has been my experience.

When it all comes down to it, organizations are looking to meet the goals efficiently and at a good cost. If you help your organization meet its goals you bring value. If you don’t, you risk being unemployed. Elearning can contribute to the organization’s value or it can be an extra expense that pulls employees away from productive work.

When I talk about steering a client away from elearning, its because its not the right solution for the client. In the same sense, information based courses can be delivered a number of ways. You bring up good reasons why they can be done as full fledge courses. On the other hand, if there’s a less intrusive way to deliver the information, then that might be the best options.

Ultimately, there are no hard rules. It’s what works best for you and your needs.

Sandipan Roy

January 9th, 2008

Hi Tom! Thanks for your prompt and detailed response. I do agree with you that providing the best advice certainly increases our value, and helps in the long run.

Elinor

January 9th, 2008

Hi Tom, great post, as usual refreshing and I do like those graphics you come up with!

Just one thing I wanted to say. I quite agree with your distinction in various courses, but to me target audience should also be built into that equation.

Building a course for one specific type of audience is tenfold easier than building a course designed for people in different positions, etc.

Take decision-making for instance. You may need to train people working in completely different areas (e.g. maintenance staff, lab technicians and physicians). If you are on budget-restrictions (who isn’t?) it may cost you less to build a single course with “optional” extras than to build three separate courses for each level of understanding/detail. (Also this may simply be a user requirement).

Just wondering what your take is on this and whether you would build this into an Articulate presentation or use a different means of training.

BTW, I like your idea of “coursels” (reminds me of information mapping), it definitely links in well with that approach, and obviously increases reusability, etc., etc.

tom

January 9th, 2008

Good question, Elinor…and good fodder for a future post:) A way that’s worked for me in the past is to offer one core course with multiple paths. For example, I could do a pre-assessment that takes an experienced person one way and a novice another. I could build a courses that has a core path. At each section, I offer the essential info, then I can offer two other options, a more info and show me, for example.

The learner gets the essential info, yet has the option for more remedial instruction. Just some ideas. Thanks for the question. I’ll create a more detailed post on this later.

links for 2008-01-09 | Ed Tech Hacks

January 9th, 2008

[...] Are You Building the Right Type of E-Learning Course? – The Rapid eLearning Blog (tags: elearning instructional_design) [...]

Elinor

January 10th, 2008

Hi Tom,

Thanks for your speedy response!

Just wondering though. Don’t you find the first solution more or less equates to developing N courses for N levels of expertise? IMHO, trainers in corporate environments unfortunately often lack the time (and sometimes even the motivation) to insert prerequisites or build valid assessments to allow for dynamic learning paths.

The core path with links to additional training really appeals to me on the other hand as it seems simpler and less time-consuming to develop and also to maintain in the long run.

Thanks again for reading and sharing, I am definitely looking forward to reading that future post !

- Elinor

Sushil Yadav

January 17th, 2008

Hi Tom,

I agree with Sandipan Roy’s comment that just having some learning documents instead of e-learning courses is not a good idea. E-learning courses provide learners with an environment that is conducive for learning. It motivates and attracts learners towards learning. This might not be true if the learners are provided just some pdf docs.

- Sushil Yadav

tom

January 17th, 2008

Hello Sushil and welcome to the blog.

I don’t see it as an either or situation. It really depends on the circumstances for your course and objectives. For example, in a corporate environment, many elearning “courses” are really not courses as much as they are repurposed content that is already available on the intranet.

If all the course requires is reading, then I advocate creating a process that better supports reading. I’ve had success creating blended processes, where part of the content was delivered one way (offline) and then another part delivered online (like the assessment).

The main point is not so much getting rid of the elearning course. Instead, it’s to create a solution to meet your goals. If you can meet your goals without a course, then that’s a good alternative.

3 Ways to Define Interactive Rapid E-Learning » The Rapid eLearning Blog

November 3rd, 2009

[...] Are You Building the Right Type of E-Learning Course? [...]

Jennifer

November 6th, 2009

Hey Tom,

Can’t agree more!

I was given a contract fix the Call Centre induction for a large financial firm. It took new staff nearly 6 months to reach the minimum quality statistics (that’s if they stayed that long).

My analysis found that in induction they taught them: obscure pieces of knowledge on the off chance that they might get a call about it, products that had been phased out and accounted for less than 0.01% of all calls, seasonal knowlege all year rond, to refer to out of date training manuals rather than the up-to-date support tools, etc, etc.

Almost two thirds of what was being training was irrelevant. And they weren’t learning how to use the tools at their disposal.

I cut the training from 5 classroom based weeks to 3 weeks (almost half of that time was spent on-job to get a feel for the role). I changed the learning focus to the core things they needed to know and how to use the search engines. Through out most of the training manauls and replaced them with workbooks where they had to look up information in the online database. Every learning activity had a practical and measurable outcome.

By the 3 month mark – they had the best stats in the call centre (including quality). By the 6 month mark, several moved into more senior roles. By the 12 month mark, we had retained 10 out of the 11 trainees. Two had become trainers and the other 2 becaome Team Leaders.

Too much focus is spent on training people to recall minute pieces of information they may never use on job. We have to teach them how to fish. And the best news is that it’s so much easier, faster and effective to approach training this way.

Cheers
Jen