C2 Workshop's E-Learning Blog

Creative Writing Versus CMoS and MSTP

The concept of ‘putting the pen to paper’ for me, was – still is – an irresistible proposition. And, a very charming one at that.

I used to reflect, how things have become so simple these days! Do I feel like writing something? And, want the whole world to read what I have written? All I have to do is, just open my laptop, translate my thoughts into words and ‘publish’ them. That’s it. Mission accomplished!

In a way – In every way, to be precise - this charm of writing is what has brought me around into ‘Instructional Design’.

But, why ‘Instructional Design’, of all things? Why not? It’s like, as they say, any craft could manifest itself through different mediums. Writing for ‘Instructional Design’ is one such.

Awright! Sounds great!

Now, on to the practical side of the whole ‘charm’! Getting into the attire of an instructional designer and writing, is not the same thing as my writing whatever I feel like.

In addition to keeping in mind a few specific things while handling this craft, I need to also arm myself with a set of language tools. These help me in chiseling my writing, for the target audience I’m designing the courses for.

‘Chicago Manual of Styles’ (CMoS) and ‘Microsoft Manual of Style for Technical Publications’ (MSTP) are two such.

A couple of days ago, I found myself hearing this question coming from within. ‘Why not share some of the insights of one of these tools – MSTP - with my fellow instructional designers?”

And, that’s how this blog piece is coming about.

Maybe, I should pause here, considering this as an introduction to a long, interesting study into this aspect of the language.

Stay tuned! Will be back with a few installments of notes on MSTP.

(Nirmal Ranganathan, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)

iPad - The Future of E-Learning?

All of five years old and ready for an iPad! I was flummoxed. Certainly my friend was spoiling her son. What would he ever do with it? I mean he still lisps. But technology has come a long way. A recent article in AdAge.com, “How the iPad became Child's Play – and a Learning Tool” discussed this very phenomena - how easy it is for toddlers to use an iPad.

So the iPad is an excellent medium for knowledge delivery. And with Internet access, it enables easier reading than a laptop or PC for, say, text-rich websites and learning portals.

But, while an iPad can definitely engage kids and grown-ups alike, can it be utilized for e-learning? For starters, it has a great advantage. Its intuitive interface. This aspect allows both trainers and teachers to spend less time initiating the technology needed to access their courses to learners, and enables them, instead, to focus on the actual material. Also, a recent survey has shown that the iPad is a favourite among both the education and corporate sectors since it is the perfect tool for contextual and participative learning. This popularity can make the iPad the ideal platform for both self-directed learning and add-on learning.

However, creating e-learning content for the iPad throws up unique challenges, since Apple does not support Flash…the preferred e-learning standard technology for web-based interactive learning. Incidentally, Apple backs HTML5 and touts it to be the next big wave, forcing the developers to choose between Apple and Adobe. But the iPad’s popularity and giant strides in promoting both personalized and interactive learning, and workplace learning, has egged Adobe to accelerate the launch of its Captivate with capability to output HTML5 for iPad. If this becomes a reality, we can safely assume that HTML5 will be widely accepted as a platform for e-learning development on the iPad. And, if that happens, the iPad can move from being a great gadget to a full blown e-learning device. Welcome to the wait and watch game.

For interesting comparisons on Apple vs Adobe Flash, click here. 

(Banshori Bhattacharya, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)

Defining E-Learning Objectives - Part III

We wound up the last blog post with the question, “Even if I manage to craft measurable behavioral objectives, how far would I succeed in MOTIVATING my learners?”

If you are, by any chance, landing straight on this post, please visit the earlier two posts, before taking off from here.

Motivation is a wonderful state of mind. If I am motivated to do something, I wouldn’t let anything – anything – stop me from going after what I want. I just wouldn’t rest till I accomplish my mission. It’s as simple as that!

The same philosophy applies to my learners as well.

As an instructional designer, if I succeed in MOTIVATING my learners, I’ve successfully covered 75% of my task. The rest would just fall in place.

So, how do I motivate?

One of the most cherished advertising/marketing secrets is to sell the BENEFITS of a product and not the product itself. If I manage to sell the benefits, I’ve sold the product.

In a way, it is the same with my learners as well. If I sell them the benefits of the course I’m crafting for them, I would see them getting automatically motivated to learn. Job done!

The greatest truths, as they say, are the simplest.

Now, how do I sell my learners the benefits of the course? I don’t meet them in person, I don’t talk to them over phone. I need to communicate with them only through the course. And, the ‘hand-shake’ happens on the Objectives.

That’s how Objectives become a very important phase of the course. If the motivation needs to happen, it can happen only here. If I need to grab my learners’ attention, I can do only here.

How I design the Objectives makes all the difference. Instead of being bookish with my verbs, however appropriate they may be, I need to convert them to benefits. Here are a few instances that would explain this point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Instance 1:
How it is:
At the end of this course, you will be able to identify essential components of client servicing.
How it could be:
In a while from now, say an hour, you would have learned how to easily earn that precious smile from your customer; and possibly, the sale.

Instance 2:
How it is:
At the end of this course, you will be able to comprehend various types of solar energy systems.
How it could be:
It should not take longer than an hour and a half for you to appreciate the beauty of solar energy and various ways by which the sun’s bounty could be harnessed for the benefit of human kind.

Instance 3:
How it is:
At the end of this course, you will be able to demonstrate how an applicant’s loan application could be processed.
How it could be:
On successful completion of this course, you would have become quite confident about analyzing various critical parameters that would help you to successfully process loan applications that come your way.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interestingly, this tiny effort to strike a chord with my learners, would transform the very way I handle the subject.

The conviction that I need to always keep my learners in my mind, helps me to mould and shape up the content in a way they would like to see it.

The sensitivity and sensibility employed on the entire course architecture is very much worth it, because, at the end of the day, I craft the course ONLY for my learners.

And, I succeed ONLY when they enjoy the learning experience.

(Nirmal Ranganathan, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)

E-Learning and Games

As per industry sources, 70% of learners drop out of their e-learning applications without completing them.
 
What, by golly, does this mean? Folks run away from learning? It just can’t be. No way. 
 
Because, if you see, people want to enjoy new things everyday. Pretty natural, right? Otherwise, they would keep seeing the same old things, and will be yawning away to glory. Oh, what a rusting feel that could be! Mind you, we’re talking just about our outward senses here.
 
What about the inner stuff, the mind? It too needs to feel stimulated with some fresh stuff every day. As otherwise, it would also be yawning. Only thing, we can’t see it. Now, that’s not the point. The question is, could we designate this stimulation as learning, in simple terms? We could, I guess.
 
So, there’s no scratching our heads about learning, per se. It has to be around, because, it keeps the pulse racing. Awright! Where, then, is the catch?
 
I wonder if it’s got to do with the way the stuff is presented to us. Possible!
 
Coming to think of it, I’m at my wit’s end, seeing the way people – I mean all these teachers, professors, and instructors – present their stuff to me. Intolerably drab! That probably was the reason why I used to always sit near the door in the class room. Scoot, when the bell rings! Get the heck out!
 
Now, here comes this guy, giving me a naughty smile. Throws a puzzle at me, and asks me if I could handle it. Suddenly, I find myself sitting up. My senses have become acute. I’m ready to respond, because… I’m at risk.
 
This is exactly what happens with  kids. They get irresistibly hypnotized by computer and online games, not without any reason. Because, they get kicked up about being at risk, they hate to lose, so they put all their energies together in learning those ways that’ll help them to come out of it. Only to feel top-of-the-world when they win, having mastered the ‘tricks of the trade’.
 
The infatuation for playing with risks, holds sway over many a heart. Cliff-hanging, wave-surfing, para-gliding, skiing, the list can go on. If only instructional designers could get a hang of this stuff and bring in at least a little bit of that thrill factor in the courses they design!
 
The thing is, it’s happening. Slowly but surely! Experts say that by 2014, more than 75% of the global organizations will have some kind of gamified application. Because, such engagements, they find, do bring in the most needed learner attention levels.

Games rule. And, they also strike a winning formula with e-learning.

(Nirmal Ranganathan, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)

ID's Identification Code: Learners

Deadlines could have a lethal effect. They DO!

They invariably succeed in seeing us, the Instructional Designers, succumb to their pressure! "Hey... what do you think you're doin', lookin' at the ceiling? Waitin' for inspiration, is it? Boy, time's up. Get up and run. Get me the material before EOD today. Got it??"

And, there we're, sprinting to catch up the 'dead'lines. And, just about manage to catch them late into the night! Press Enter on the content. It goes. Relief!!

And, what? The Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) are DELIGHTED, 'cos, the content they're lookin' for, is all there. Perfectly chunked and sequenced well! They, in fact, give us a Thumbs Up!

"Gr8 job done! We see brilliant work here. Lookin' forward to working with you in future." THEY'VE WON!

The thing is, they're talkin' about 'work'. Not about 'instructional designing'! But, we're delighted gettin' that much-awaited feedback and are 'happy and contented'. 'Contented'. WE'VE LOST!

Where're the learners - the learners, the way they've to be approached from the instructional designing perspective - here? Completely absent! Perfectly understandable. 'Cos, they're not the ones commissioning the project... they're not the ones overseeing the content. If at all, they're at the receiving end. They better look after themselves!

Boy! Instructional Designing, in the purest sense of what it stands for, stands there, orphaned.

Mind you! Nothing's wrong with the SMEs here. They're perfectly placed on their expectations. As long as they get what they want, they're happy. They are the subject matter experts of their subject, not of  instructional designing. We can't expect them to know and appreciate how it works. They go scot-free on the issue we're discussing.

That said, the ball comes back to IDs' court. What are we doing? With all due respect to deadlines, are we not supposed to be extremely sensitive to the learners' needs? Are we not supposed to be thinking for them? Is that not what instructional designing is all about?

The answer to all these questions lies in our realizing that the learners are our protégés. We can't, at any cost, let go of our dharma of 'identifying' with them. If only we get it right, we would well be on our way to infusing a different 'language' into our storyboards.

(Nirmal Ranganathan, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)

Paradigm Shift: ROI on Technology Based Training

 
Jeff Parker, the new CEO, welcomed the Chief Learning Officer into his suite, to discuss the existing skill sets of the organization's employees.

The reason: Performance levels continued to remain sluggish despite all the training imparted to them. And, that was a concern.

"I just wanted to check with you. We invest so much on training. What do we get out of it? What are the returns?"

"We've a consistent track record of training all our guys on new technologies, whenever that happens, in record time. And, we've introduced technical programs that'll make them savvier. We do have returns. Not in monetary terms. But, in terms of number of employees trained, yes. Does that explain it, Mr. Parker?"

"Not really. You mind my being candid?"

"Absolutely not. Please..."

"So many have got trained, awright. But, what about the change in their skill sets? You see any? I don't see any. We need to 'see' them, right? They've to reflect in the performance reports. So, what are we talkin' about? What kind of intervention have we effected for our guys?"

"Well, it's more of activity based intervention, yes."

"Dot on. The thing is, we need to change it. Change the strategy. Go for the paradigm shift. Change it to result based intervention. Then, we could talk about ROI."

x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x

Precisely. Before being taken up for discussion, ROI needs to run on certain logical parameters.

For the technology based training to turn around and start paying dividends, we need to make changes in the blueprint first.

Design a linkage to specific, identifiable business needs rather than perceived needs and wish lists (say, for instance, implementing the newest and greatest technology). Set the goals on the expected performance of skills rather than the application of a 'blanket' technology that trains everyone regardless of current skill levels. Quantify the desired behavioural change. And, communicate these convictions to those who are to get trained.

And then, start thinking ROI. There's no reason why it'll not work. 'Cos, enhanced knowledge skills and behavior change are by far the best tools that could bring about a transformation in an organization's performance.

So, what is needed here, is not questioning the technology based training. Its role in undebatable.

What is needed is a complete paradigm shift in our thinking that would give a new interpretation to the accountability of the training.     

(Nirmal Ranganathan, Instructional Designer, C2 Workshop)