While creating a storyboard for online courses, I usually turn to templates to make my task simple. If you’ve more than a few members of your team working on the same project and you need the look and feel of the course to be consistent when done, it is ideal to use templates. 

Templates include various different elements such as buttons, icons, color schemes, images, games and much more. Tools such as PowerPoint master slide layouts allow you to have a range of pages ready to insert content. The whole idea of a template is that you can use the elements an infinite number of times for different projects. Let me tell how I benefit from using templates while developing online training course: 

• First, it saves time and effort. Re-creating buttons, icons, colors, etc, each time when I create a storyboard is time-consuming. It is nice to have a few sets of interface, layouts, icons, buttons, colors and frequently used components handy. I enjoy dragging and dropping the elements into the place and voila, I’m ready to roll out a course!
• A library of templates elements is valuable to whose (like me) do not have web or multimedia designer at their disposal. An amateur takes a long time to create a Flash movie or design a button than an expert. Besides, the quality of work may not be up to the mark. I prefer to focus on creating good learning materials for the course rather than drawing a pretty button.
• Many of the clients I have worked with prefer their courses to have a consistent look and feel – same colors, quality and more. They provide me with their readymade set of templates to use for developing of course materials.
• If a company is using LMS, there are certain requirements for proper functioning. By having custom-designed templates compatible with the LMS, life is easy for all of us. Templates mean less troubleshooting time and faster turnaround of course development.
• Not all IDs (yours truly!) have web designing or multimedia skills. It is best to have various elements of templates created by experts as it gives a touch of professionalism to the courses. I just need to edit the template and its elements to add the course content.
• As I mentioned earlier, an ID has to create good learning material and not design templates and elements. By using templates while developing courses, IDs can think of creative ways to make a course interesting and churn out more courses in a short span of time. 

These are the few benefits that I see from using templates while creating an e-learning module. 

Do share your thoughts with me on the same.

As an instructional designer, I have worked with many Subject Matter Experts (SMEs). I came across several SMEs who lack the experience of working with an instructional designer, hence making them aware about the process of creating an e-learning course. It goes without saying that SMEs play an instrumental part in developing an effective e-learning course.

SMEs are connoisseurs in their field of work. They possess immense knowledge of the subject, contribute content, source materials, reference links, prioritize topics and concepts, check the content for technical accuracy, etc. Failure on an ID’s part to incorporate constructive information in the course can result in an ineffective e-learning product.

A good SME respects project timelines, understands learning objectives, the learner’s motivation and does not force every bit of content in a course. Before the start of any project, it is good to spend some time to get to know the SME. This ice-breaker forms the basis of a relationship of trust between both parties. Usually, SMEs are very willing to help and share their knowledge if you build a good relationship with them. The following are my observations on my interactions with SMEs.

Introduce e-learning to the SME. Explain what good e-learning is, its capabilities and limitations. Discuss timelines and the process of creating an e-learning product from concept to finish. To provide a better understanding, create a special project plan discussing each step of the project and timeline. Be specific about time commitments, such as an estimate of each task and the final deliverable dates. This will help both parties to stay on track and meet deadlines.

Discuss the SME’s role in the creating the product. Ask SME to schedule his time for your project and prepare him for the task on hand. Help him identify your training needs, audience and their motivation and learning objectives. Make sure that the SME is accessible for clarifications on the content during the development process. Communicate what you want, how much you want at each step of the project. Also, invite the SME to attend the kick-off meeting. He will be able to know and understand the target audience and the client’s needs.

Before your information-gathering meetings, do your homework on the subject. Read all you can on the topic before approaching the SME with a question or two, when in doubt because this wastes his time. Instead, create a question bank which the SME can answer in an organized manner.

While some e-learning companies have internal SMEs, often, the client too provides the vendor with internal experts. Respect the SME’s time. Plan deliverables, schedule meetings or phone calls according to his convenience.

It is possible that SME loses focus on the learning objectives. As an ID, you should help him stay on track. He may want to include unrelated content. Allow him to step into the learner’s shoes and ask,”How will the learner use this piece of information on the job?” Keep the extra content aside and find innovative ways to make it useful to the learner.

Update the SME during the development stage. If possible, share any available content. Ask the SME to proofread the course on completion of the first draft. Create a checklist with detailed instructions on proofreading the course. Your checklist can include details relating to consistency and clarity of the content, accuracy of review and assessments questions, technical accuracy of the content and flow of the course, etc..

By incorporating the above-mentioned points, I continue to enjoy a good working relationship with SMEs. Keeping them informed and involved during each step of the course creation process will lead to an effective alliance for your e-learning project.

What are your thoughts on the same? Do comment and share your knowledge on what it takes to be an instructional designer and what was your experience working with SMEs.

Thank you for reading my blog.

Usually, training needs are identified during an annual performance appraisal done by HRD. These needs are handed over to corporate training to initiate involvement to address them. The needs are classified and collated; training calendars drawn; training budgets projected and so on.

That’s fine but when the demand arise from the line managers for training other than those that fall in the above category, how do we react? Do we go by the book and start from the beginning? Sounds logical, especially knowing the fact that a majority of performance gaps do not fall under the purview of training.

Most line managers want the training to be delivered yesterday! There is always a dearth of time, resources and money, which makes us think twice before we jump into a full-fledged analysis.

So, the question is when can we skip and when can we not?

We tend to skip a formal analysis process when we use rapid prototyping where Instructional Designers (IDs) and Subject matter Experts (SMEs) work in a continual loop to produce a prototype. The prototype becomes the first step in the cycle and front-end analysis gets integrated into an ongoing, iterative process between subject matter, objectives and courseware.

According to Mager & Pipe, we should explore fast fixes before spending time and resources on further analysis. All that is required is a quick-and-easy remedy such as:

• Uncovering invisible expectations
• Providing proper resources
• Supplying feedback

I have posted the discussion question, “Which is better for Sales Training? Classroom or Online?” in LinkedIn groups earlier this week. There were more than 100 responses. I thought the combined wisdom of 100 of us should be shared.

To give you an idea of who responded, there were learning consultants, training managers, corporate trainers, directors, instructional designers, business analysts, product managers, software developers, training leaders and strategists, computer specialists, training & education executives, eLearning managers, instructors, marketing managers, writers, authors, speakers…

…from industries such as Information Technology and Services, Oil and Gas, eLearning, Training, Education, Communication, Government, Pharmaceutical, Media, Banking, Internet, Retail, Machinery, Arts & Craft and so on.

Here is a snapshot of the responses:

Each response was great, reflecting the unique expertise of the respondent and his/ her willingness to share it.

Here are some ( according to me ) relatively more detailed/ incisive/ educative responses in verbatim:

In favor of Blended Approach:

• The answer to that depends on the size, nature, and distribution of the sales force. If it is large, turns over rapidly, and is geographically disperse, then getting people together for leader-led training is cost prohibitive. The best program to have is a combination of leader-led, online, and performance support tools. The proper utilization of leader-led training, where the leader is more of a facilitator as opposed to a trainer, can and does result in improved job performance though.

• The US Dept of Education recently released a report which showed some interested findings related to just this subject. They found that the best results came from a blended approach which involved both online and class-room, instructor-led scenarios. They also found that online learning proved to have better results than just class-room learning. Address more of this report at http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/evidence-based-practices/finalreport.pdf

• From my experience a combination of both online/audio in the car and classroom works really well. I use online/audio in the car to teach the theory and then reinforce and integrate it in classroom by doing exercises that apply it to their job and give them experiences. I have then set it up with their managers to provide ongoing reinforcement of the new behaviors being trained.

In favor of Classroom Training:

• I used to deliver sales training in a classroom which included making live sales calls in a “virtual office” environment. Although most trainees were apprehensive, being in a group environment helped them to develop and learn from each other. It is essential get sales people out of their comfort zone to ensure they develop and you cannot really do this online.
• I have taught sales for years, and taken many sales courses myself. I firmly believe the classroom/one on one is THE best way to go. Online is fine for the basics, but nothing can beat the classroom/one on one to produce a successful salesperson. Personalize the sales process, with the basics kept in view, and the sales person and company succeed. Sales is not a cookie cutter venture, but needs to draw and amplify the salespersons own character.

• I think that training sales should be done better in a classroom. This give an opportunity to some employees to ask any question they have. Also they can get better understanding on processes and procedures.

• Classroom training (with role plays as the major component) is far superior to online training. Selling is about communicating effectively. In order to learn effective communication skills, you need to be face-to-face.

• Classroom training is the best and will always be the best. The clients will learn and retain the most with a live person physically in front of them.

In favor of Online Training:

• All depends on the intensity and subject matter. Virtual classroom training can be very effective. Allowing people to ask real time questions and get answers. Independent (on demand) training can also very effective, Training at sales kick-offs for the introduction of new products, major announcements, etc….

• Online shall be preferred and it should be treated as case study example.
  

• Online training is great! Makes distance shorter, less time pressure…great for IT training, software implementation, procedures, accountancy.

• We just delivered technical training for learners around the world successfully for a very large financial institution. ILO is definitely one of the major waves of the future for learning. It’s been a mainstay for us for over 7 years as the right investments in infrastructure and workflow is KEY.

What do you think? Thank you for reading my blog and I welcome your comments and sharing of experiences.

RK Prasad

CEO

As teachers and instructional designers, we always endeavor to make things easy and engaging for the learner. We take pride in making our programs learner-centric but what about the standards we so religiously adhere to?

Have we ever considered if these standards are really jeopardizing our efforts? How far are these standards – AICC, IMS and SCORM – learner-centric? Do these standards have anything to do with learning? Are these standards really impeding learning? Are we too enamored with these standards that we lost sight of the most important entity – the learner?

Are we slowly getting afflicted with “Learning Myopia”? Instead of looking out of the window, are we looking at the mirror, so to speak? What about the lesser talked about standards like ASTD’s E-Learning Courseware Certification Standards and the standards used by Michigan Virtual University in producing specifications for, and evaluating, e-learning?

I found ASTD’s E-Learning Courseware Certification Standards not only learner-centric but also very comprehensive.

The standards are grouped into four principal categories to reflect the various elements of courseware design.

1. Interface Standards address the relationship between the learner and the courseware itself. There are five interface standards.
2. Compatibility Standards address the relationship between the courseware, the Operating system and related applications. There are four compatibility standards.
3. Production Quality Standards examine the quality of the courseware’s text, graphics, grammar, and visual presentation. There are two production quality standards.
4. Instructional Design Standards examine the relationship between the course purpose, objectives, instructional content, instructional methods, and the learner.

CommLab has been one of the earliest companies in the e-learning space to adopt these standards. There were times when these standards were the deciding factor in wining a project.

I would strongly recommend those of you who are not aware of these standards to visit www.astd.org and get more information. The detailed standards are offered for a nominal payment, which I assure you, is well worth it.

We at CommLab India would also be happy to provide more information about them.