In the last few weeks at Saffron Interactive there has been a lot of talk about gamification. For those that attended the recent Learning Technologies Exhibition you may have have seen one of our seminars debating the pro’s and cons of looking to videogames to provide an example for increasing engagement in Learning and development. We also developed a new mobile assessment game based on the Bribery Act. This lead to a lot of interest and also a lot of questions on what makes something an example of gamification and what practical steps can we take to bring this increasingly popular theory into the training mix?

So, shameless self-endorsement over, let’s talk about gamification! In previous posts I have attempted to provide an overview of what the term means, but the problem is that gamification can actually be quite hard to define.  It doesn’t really have an OED-worthy succinct explanation, as it’s a constantly evolving collection of ideas and design theories rather than a concept with fixed parameters. But with gamification rapidly becoming a buzzword in e-learning, now seems a good time to go back to the basics and get to grips with how gamification applies to our industry. As the pro gamers preach to e-learning professionals to think more like game designers, exactly what inspiration should designers and developers be taking?

When you break it down, the structures of gamification rely on design techniques or “mechanics” taken from popular games, which have then been applied to other sectors such as social media, advertising and e-learning.  This doesn’t mean that we have to embrace a ‘shoot ‘em up’ style of systems training, but instead developers can use this collection of ideas to pick and choose the best mechanics to achieve their goals.

I am going to share with you some simple game mechanics and suggest how they might be applied to e-learning, or even to other business situations. Hopefully by the time you’ve finished reading you’ll be able to start implementing your own gamification experiments (it’s a lot easier than people think!)

Here are my 3 simple gaming mechanics:

The Appointment Dynamic

“Be at a certain place at a certain time and you will receive a certain result”

This may not sound very game-like at first, but in fact this simple concept is used almost constantly in games, and lots of other places too. When you think about it, our daily routines have conditioned us to expect certain things to happen at certain times, whether that’s our morning train pulling into the station or Eastenders coming on around teatime. Game developers have used this fundamental idea in hugely successful games such as Farmville where at regular intervals player need to complete activities in order to maintain the upkeep of their virtual farm (this game currently has over 70 million players). Another example some people may remember are the Tamagotchi toys a few years back which had people waking up at all hours of the day to pick up virtual dog…well you get the idea! It is this simple expectation of time managements that keeps people subconsciously coming back and developing regular behaviours.

Idea – When asking staff to do timesheets instead of allowing them to be filled in any time only open the programme in set windows during the day? Often the difficulty with enforcing an area like time sheet compliance is that people don’t condition it as part of their daily routine. Obviously there may be a period of pain with clashes when this gets introduced but over a few weeks habits and compliance will occur.

Achievement Badges

Games use a variety of achievement based rewards to keep users playing. This ranges from digital medals in ‘Call of Duty’ to exclusive character upgrades in ‘World of Warcraft’. This is one of the more widely recognised gamification mechanics and is used very effectively by services such as Foursquare to provide motivation for users to take desired actions. This technique works best when it’s overlaid onto a social platform, or an online game like Warcraft, as the main performance driver is not that the user can see their achievements, but that they know others will.

Idea: Why not reward positive behaviours on your company intranet by allowing employees to display achievement badges on their profiles?

In case you missed the seminar I also looked at how Accenture have been using this simple idea you can find the full story here.

Rate of variable reward

This is a concept that originated long before gamification was ever heard of. It’s also one of the most effective, as proved by its longevity. Research has shown that humans are susceptible to scenarios where there is a degree of the unknown: the best example of this is gambling and is the main reason why it can be so addictive. Some of the games that currently have the highest levels of user playtime and engagement are built around this idea . It is illustrated very well by titles such as Star Wars “ The Old Republic” which uses a sliding scale of probabilities to randomise rewards that players receive whilst playing the game and often carrying out highly repetitive tasks. So, for example, when you open a chest containing items there is a high likelihood you will receive an average one, but a slim chance you will receive something better than you expected and a minute chance that you get something amazing!

When combined with other mechanics such as progress bars this keeps players absolutely hooked, even when doing more mundane aspects of the game, because there is a chance that something extraordinary might happen. The other great thing about the game environment is that it provides developers with almost constant feedback on a mechanic like this as they can analyse the habits of players in this virtual setting, which they manage. This means they can estimate the best probabilities to keep people engaged to the highest level possible without devaluing their rewards.

Idea: If you are trying to increase participation in filling in timesheets when they are due; why not track completion rates within a certain time period (appointment dynamic) and offer a prize draw for those who have completed and passed within the window (variable reward). You could even go a step further and award each of the users who have made it into the draw a badge to display on their intranet profile…..All of sudden timesheets are the talk of the office!

So, gamification isn’t just about having fun, it’s a valuable way to engage users and achieve serious business or learning objectives. The mechanics that I have talked about here are just some of the more common techniques that those sneaky game designers use to keep people coming back time after time. There are many more elaborate ones but hopefully these are enough to get started!

Stay tuned for more ideas around gamification and have a look at some in action from our latest show case at Learning Technologies "The Bribery Act Challenge"

The Bribery Act Challenge Login

 I’ll start with a shameless plug: Learning Technologies 2012, conference and exhibition, takes place on Wednesday 25th and Thursday 26th of this month at Olympia – and I’d love you to come and visit us on stand 33. We’ve brought together our ideas on serious games, learning on-the-move and assessment into a single engaging mobile app. If you haven’t yet registered for the exhibition, you can do so for free here: http://www.learningtechnologies.co.uk/register-now/.

 Looking back on last year, it seems that 2011 saw the English usage debate heat up, with plain English advocators angling their bayonets against the mountain of corporate jargon that permeates the modern workplace. And as an e-learning supplier, this is a matter close to Saffron’s heart.

 National Plain English Day, which took place at the tail end of last year, saw The Plain English Campaign’s ardent members shredding jargon-filled documents to mirror the event which took place on Parliament Green in Westminster in 1979, at its founding. 

Photo of original shredding, taken from www.plainenglish.co.uk

 But it wasn’t only the Plain English Campaign that stepped in to defend us from the gobbledygook clotted annals of the public information machine last year. Indeed, back in April, one of the Saffron IDs blogged about Orwell’s six rules of simple English, providing tips for how to improve the language used in e-learning courses. Another of my colleagues sent me an article on the topic by Dan Pallotta, from the Harvard Business Review. Through the link, you can cast your vote for your ‘all-time worst business buzzword’- at the moment, ‘thinking outside the box’ is winning and it’s due to the ubiquitous use of terms like these that Dan bemoans how he doesn’t ‘understand what anyone is saying anymore.’ He’s not alone. More and more bloggers, journalists and TV presenters are starting to talk about the terrible state of language in the workplace.

 Of course, this debate didn’t begin in 2011. The host of ‘tone of voice’ and writing consultancy firms that promise to banish jargon from your corporate culture for good haven’t popped up overnight. One Independent columnist wrote back in 2007: ‘I think my choice of word for banning would be "workshop."’ Other terms that get poo-pooed in the article are ‘elephant in the room’, ‘it’s not rocket science’, ‘push the needle’, ‘shoot the puppy’, ‘touch base’, ‘hit the ground running’, ‘mentoring’, ‘heads up’, ‘solutions’ and ‘get our ducks in a row.’ My favourite example of this trend towards jargon busting comes from a man quoted in a newspaper article on the topic, who shall remain un-named:

"Anyone who uses the word ‘workshop’ who isn’t connected with light engineering is a w***er."

Why does non plain English usage generate such hostility? Is it because it makes people feel stupid? Or is it because it divides people into in-groups (those who know the jargon) and out-groups (those that don’t)? Language certainly can be divisive. It was one of the catalysts for the Protestant Reformation, has caused controversy in Irish courts when defendants have asked for the right to give evidence in Irish and creates a lamentable division along social lines (think of the ‘common flower girl’ who passes as a ‘Lady’ by changing her accent). Whatever the reasons, I’m not sure that I agree that all jargon is meaningless and am uncomfortable with the Plain English Campaign’s ‘purification’ tactics or the idea of ‘banning’ words from our language.

Dan Pallotta is surely right when he says that the over-use of jargon in the workplace means that he, and perhaps many others, don’t understand a lot of what’s being said anymore. But jargon is only jargon if you don’t know what it means. The feeling of bewilderment that Dan describes in his blog is usually caused when people use language without considering their audience, as the Plain English Campaign rightly acknowledges in its aim to rid all public communication of jargon. Whilst we might not thank our doctor for telling us that the pain in our chest is caused by aortic calcification we wouldn’t object if our doctor reported a diagnosis of aortic calcification on the prescription that you’ll hand to the pharmacist.

But perhaps this is an unfitting metaphor. After all, aortic calcification is a precise term that refers to an equally precise problem. Business-speak’s many detractors would say that terms like ‘joined up thinking’ and ‘moving forward’ are general terms used precisely when people don’t really know what they mean or what they want to say. But I might have to disagree, at least in part. As cringe inducing as terms like ‘joined up thinking’, ‘pushing the envelope’, ‘deep dive’ and ‘off the shelf’ are, they do seem to mean something to the community of people who uses them. In which case, as long as it’s kept within the office, business speak might aid as opposed to hinder understanding.

Plus, is business-speak any more cringe inducing than some of the plain English that seems to be replacing it? Take Innocent’s brand literature as a case in point. Their fruit smoothie bottles tell you to ‘shake it up baby’ before drinking and promises to always eat its greens. I don’t want my fruit smoothie to have a personality. We’re grown ups and it’s belittling. Pret’s ‘hello I’m your new toastie, please eat me’ packaging is even worse.

I don’t disagree with the Plain English Campaign’s original complaint, but it seems that we’ve gone from one extreme to another when it comes to the language used in public communication. I don’t want to be spoken to by HMRC’s disembodied cipher or a personified toastie. Here’s to hoping that 2012 brings a new, more moderate, use of the English language. 

 Does a good-looking course qualify as good quality? What about an ordinary course that brings about great behavioural change? I’m sure the argument can be extended to both sides. But my argument is to take the middle-path (very Buddha-like indeed, except I see no chance of Nirvana!).

As instructional designers, our primary responsibility is to bring about behavioural change, thereby, hopefully, also providing sufficient return on investment for our clients. At the same time, most of us are also looking to maximize our profits. So we need to strike a perfect balance between a good product that does not exceed budgets and a product that gets the job done: in short, the minimum we can do to get the maximum.

Where does that leave quality? Out in the open, in some cases, I’m afraid. If the client is happy, and we get our money, we seem to think of it as a job well done. Now, here comes the middle-path bit (let it not be said I didn’t warn you!)… that’s not enough! As conscientious professionals, it is our responsibility to ensure that we provide a learning experience that the learner can enjoy.

Top Tips:

• Quality is not about quantity: more interactions do not make for better quality
• Visually stimulating products need to be backed up by well-thought out content chunks

A patient walks into the doctor’s chamber and advises the doctor on what line of treatment he would prefer. Alternatively, if you prefer scenario two, the farm owner walks into the office of the investment banker and advises him where he should invest the firm’s money.

If you think both are perfectly normal, then you may as well stop reading here – I’ve failed to make a point and there’s nothing more in this blog for you. However, if these two instances do strike you as a tad out of the ordinary, then I have a question for you: When it comes to instructional design, why is it that the clients often decide on what’s best?

Some instructional designers are quite happy to let a course go the way it is provided the client is happy. What’s wrong with that? Well, I’ve seen screens with visuals that make no sense, interactive screens with over 50 clicks that do not make one iota of difference to the outcome of the course, screens with amounts of text that would make even the great Leo Tolstoy cringe, and sentences that are longer and even more convoluted than this one!

Some say you’ve got to take the good with the bad, and I guess that’s the theme of today’s blog. I’ve recently been working on a couple of courses in Articulate, a rapid authoring tool in which you can build professional online instruction and interactions such as multi-response, in Engage, Presenter and Quizmaker. From colour schemes on hotspots and drag and drop tabs, to personalised individual feedback on multi-choice quizzes, Articulate allows you to tailor every course to your needs, and for that, it’s brilliant. But every fairytale has its trials, and with its hidden file settings and disobedient applications, Articulate is no exception. ‘Simple’ interactions have sprouted several problematic gremlins in my courses – gremlins with a deft ability to escape a number of computers and baffle the developer. So with that in mind, here it is: a quick-fire review of Articulate – the good, the bad, and the downright ugly!

Why we should treasure it:

• It’s fast. Articulate isn’t part of the ‘rapid authoring tool’ family for nothing.

• Unlike Adobe Flash, output in Articulate interactions have Flash content, and launch in Flash player, but this Flash content is self contained, and ‘invisible’ to the user. All you need to remember is that Flash player must be installed when running the course. Simple as.

• It’s familiar. Remember when Microsoft Office first erupted onto the scene, and we all had to learn how to incorporate PowerPoint into our business meetings? The part of us that wilted as we realised that the childish fun flipchart doodles provided was no more? Now PowerPoint has come of age, and we bow our heads in respect, at this simple but mighty tool proudly presents itself as the plug-in template for Articulate presenter. Operating in the exact same way as PPT, changing text, player templates and colour schemes couldn’t be easier.

• It’s straightforward. Building basic interactions in Articulate’s Engage and Quizmaker applications is really simple. Forget about HTML programming, because with Articulate non-developers can literally select which interactions they want to integrate from drag and drop, to multi-choice questions and just type or copy in whatever questions, options or feedback they want. The ‘more complicated’ stuff, like importing audio is really just as easy.  You import audio’ in almost the same way as you would upload a file or image in PPT. It looks professional – complex even – and it takes just minutes to build.

Why we should banish it:

• It’s tedious. If you need to make a change to interactions in the course, such as the amount of attempts users are allowed when answering questions, you can’t make a universal change – the developer must go through each slide and check that elements are checked/unchecked in the toolbar or change menu. An ‘apply to all’ function would really help here, and quicken the pace, too.
• ‘Hidden’ applications are also common. There have been times where I have selected “3 points” to reward correct responses in interactions, only to find that I have to select this application somewhere else as well, in order for the change to take effect. Having to trawl through different menus to check this adds time to development, and is rather frustrating, when one check-box enabling or disabling a function would be adequate.

• It’s so elusive! We have experienced issues with projects that we’ve developed in Articulate. Audio transcripts will disappear from some notes tabs when published and transcripts appear in other slides where there is no audio.

However, the difficult, and most time consuming aspect of these issues, is that they surface on some computers, and not others. Even after checking browser and Flash player settings and versions, these issues can dodge diagnostics by picking and choosing when they will replicate on other stations. It has been a notorious issue, one which we have solved by calling in the big dogs: the Articulate engineers themselves. Interestingly, the engineer told me that the issue I was facing is a known (and underpublicized) fault with the software which Articulate has so far been unable to fix. After a great deal of searching, I found the work-around for this issue on the Articulate website but alas, it didn’t work! 110 dollars later, the engineer was more than happy to talk me through an improved version of the work-around. All this extra work wreaks havoc on project budgets and can test even the best client relationships. My only question now is, will Articulate’s solution (when it arrives) be available as a free update or will we all have to purchase a new and improved version of the software? Fortunately, you can get around some of these bugs by developing your own player template in Flash, rather than using Articulate’s default template. We’ve used our own customised player template with much success – it looksand works better. And if you build your quiz and interaction screens in Flash too then you can avoid some of the other problems that I’ve outlined above. But then one gets to wondering: if most of the course is built in Flash, then why bother with Articulate at all? From our client’s perspectives, one of Articulate’s key virtues is that it allows them to easily edit the course in-house. But the more Flash based content you use, the less editable the course becomes. So there it is – the good and the bad. Articulate can be a great tool when you’ve got the time, budget and patience. Otherwise it might leave you feeling as if you’ve bitten into a poisoned apple – more than you could chew. Of course, in real life, it’s not as simple as ‘banishing’ a programme, or an important piece of software, no matter how much we sometimes might want to. And there are some extremely useful and detailed user manuals out there which can help non-developers through the vast majority of issues, step by step. But for now I’ll retire to my mystical world, a lost heroine dreaming for a hundred years, about Articulate…or maybe just until Monday.

In my last blog I discussed the increasing conflict between the long established listen and learn styles of presenting and the ever increasing use of mobile devices by participants during talks. In the first part of my blog I looked at how listeners can ensure these devices don’t disrupt their learning experience. This week we come to the bit everybody has been waiting for. How can presenters ensure they get the most engagement out of those people tapping away on iPhones, iPads and a range of other devices?

Here are my top tips!

• Don’t be put off: Everyone has their own way of learning – don’t take people’s engagement with these devices as a sign of not listening to what you’re saying.
• Recognise and embrace the existence of these tools: Even if you would rather that people didn’t tweet during your talk, the chances are that they will! Rather than seeing this as an inconvenience, use it to get an idea of how your content was received and how you could improve in the future. Providing an official #hashtag will allow you to keep track of what was said. Have you ever wished that there were more questions at the end of your talk? Why not use your #hashtag to respond to comments and queries?

• Make your information available: Many people take lots of notes and don’t participate in discussions during talks because they are afraid of missing things. If you can direct people to an area where they can download hard copies of slides and case studies you remove this concern, leaving them free to participate.
• Structure your talks with these devices in mind: Nobody has really been trained yet in how to deal with the inclusion of these devices in their talks, so innovate! If you feel there is a 5 or 10 minute period where you need 100% attention, try saying something like “For the next 10 minutes we need devices down”. However, you should use this sparingly and explain why it’s necessary. 

• Be as engaging as possible: I admit, I’ve fiddled with my iPhone in some talks not to collate information, but simply because I found the speaker boring! The art of being a good presenter could fill a whole new article, but I will share one great technique I was taught at Reuters; ask one question to the audience for every 3 bullet points on your slide. This stops their attention slipping and can take the presentation in interesting new directions. If you keep your listeners on their toes they are less likely to become immersed in Twitter and more likely to be engaged in what you want to talk about.

Interestingly the future might have presenters using features like Siri (a new set of voice activated functions on iPhone 4s) to give "shout outs" from the speaker. A certain word or phrase could trigger a response from the device instructing it to interact with other devices in the room without the presenter having to do anything other than carry on talking.  I would add as I have been working rather than queuing to get the new iPhone (as well as being stuck on a 2 year contract) this is pure speculation but I think it illustrates the point that that there is a lot of scope to further innovate in this area. QR codes also have great potential to encourage participation in talks via mobile devices. For example the polltogo tool uses QR codes to let presenters ask a question and poll their audience for answers, ratings and comments further enhancing engagement and giving valuable feedback.

If you have any tips or examples on clever ways to incorporate mobile devices and resources like Twitter into presentations I would be interested in hearing about them – please use the comment feature below this blog to share your thoughts so that we can also get input from the community at large. In the meantime, I’m off to play angry birds and check out the app store …

Next time that you go to a business presentation, stop for a moment and take a look at how many people are typing away on smartphones or tablets whilst the speaker is talking. Is this evidence of a more active listener contribution and a higher level of efficiency, or of a short attention span? I’d suggest that this phenomenon isn’t because people are distracted by new technology, but instead that the audience participation in the group business presentation is changing. In my opinion, three of the main technologies responsible are:

• Twitter
• Smart Phones
• Tablets

It’s now possible to comment on #eventhashtags in real time, letting other people know what you’re listening to. But is this a good thing?

If my old head teacher were to give a talk during which devices were in constant use, he would probably complain about a device dependent society, and a lack of respect. The counter argument is that these devices actually increase learning by collating content more efficiently, allowing sharing with others and lead to a more active contribution than passive listening. Craig Taylor’s article (http://tayloringit.com/2011/09/i-got-it-wrong-or-did-i/) makes the point that somebody taking notes with a pen and paper would not be frowned upon, so why is an iPad any different? Personally, I think that the truth is that technology has evolved faster than presentation etiquette has allowed for. Some business people may have been giving talks for decades, but the use of mobile devices for learning is a fairly new trend, and the impression of a listener looking distracted by a screen rather than being attentive is hard to shake. So I’ve come up with some guidelines to help reconcile these conflicts, and ensure that everyone gets the most out of presentations. For this entry I suggest the following  tips for participants in talks, next week I will have tips for presenters!

Listeners:

• Remember why you went to the talk: Although new technologies have given an extra dimension to presentations, nothing beats the impact of fully engrossing yourself in what somebody is saying. You have taken your time to go and attend a talk, so try to only tweet and mind map when it’s necessary, and not just for the sake of it. If you wanted to follow the backchannel you could have stayed in the office!
• Respect the speaker: There is a degree of trust involved with letting these devices become a part of a presentation. Although a tablet is great for making notes, it’s up to the listener to make sure they don’t distract themselves with that quick game, email, app etc. Set a good example!

• Sometimes you just have to listen: I believe there are some times when you have to focus 100% on what somebody is saying. Devices divert some of your brain power, even if it’s only a fraction. So sometimes you need to put them away. I challenge anybody to absorb a lecture on quantum physics whilst paying anything less than full attention … It would also be difficult to grasp an emotive video clip, a tough question from the audience or a new concept without using your full concentration. Recognise these moments.
• Use technology to police your own behaviour: Think about how you can get the most out of your device whilst still listening. For example, just because it’s a “device down” period doesn’t mean you can’t set up a voice record on your phone before putting it down! (And no, that isn’t cheating, that’s being innovative). Or what about a tab on your phone with just the essential apps for presentations so you aren’t tempted to get side tracked? You could also use privacy and time locks on certain contacts to avoid the impulse to message friends -  the options are endless.
• Moderation: Think about whether or not the contributions that you are making through your device are meaningful. If 5 people have already updated the #hashtag with a new speaker do you really need to do it as well? Also, if the presentation is available afterwards make notes that are relevant to you but don’t just copy content – this is a waste of time and attention.

What are people’s thoughts on this? Have behaviours really changed? Are people on the whole becoming bad listeners? Be sure to visit the Spicy Learning Blog next week for my top tips for presenters.

What do we mean when we talk about assessment in the context of e-learning? Too often, I’d suggest, we mean the test at the end of an online course. Perhaps we’ll call it a ‘quiz’ in the hope of making it more palatable for the learner, but all that does, I suspect, is make the learner feel still more patronised.  The purpose of such a test is to determine whether the learner has, or has not passed the course.

If that’s all our assessments do, then we’re failing in our duties as professionals. If the audience for our courses genuinely are learners, then the purpose of our assessments should be to (a) discover the level of their current know-how and (b) provide feedback that helps them to perform better.

Let me give you an example to show you how this can work. I’ve deliberately chosen a case where there simply isn’t a right or wrong answer, so we’re about as far from a pass/fail test as we can be.

The example comes from work by HR luminary Dave Ulrich. In his book Human Resource Champions, Harvard Business Press, 1996, Ulrich talks of four roles or priorities for HR professionals:

 Whether you’re an HR person yourself or a humble L&D operative like me, you’ll probably have your own personal ranking of these priorities. So let’s imagine ourselves developing an online course for an HR audience and specifically designing an interaction in which we invite learners to choose their top two priorities from the four listed above.

What now? Well, first we can point out the advantages and strengths of any particular selection. So someone who has chosen Strategic Partner and Administrative Expert is fully process-oriented while someone who paired Employee Champion with Administrative Expert is duly focused on day-to-day, operational issues. But we can also note that there are risks associated with these choices too and have the opportunity to spell out these disadvantages: the process specialist may be neglecting the ‘people side’ of the job whereas the operational specialist may be overlooking strategic matters in favour of the here and now.

So what have we achieved here? I think this simple case has three interesting characteristics:

• We’ve used assessment as a way of finding out about the learner, rather than as an opportunity to say “Yes, well done” or “No, not quite”.
• We’ve provided feedback that helps the learner to assess themselves, which indicates ways to develop and improve performance.
• We’ve used e-learning to match the variety of responses (I’ll leave it to you to work out how many different pairs of priorities there are) in a way that perhaps wouldn’t be possible in a face-to-face or virtual classroom setting.

We’ll be exploring these ideas and their consequences in an LSG webinar on Thursday, 13th October 2011. Email us for details and do join us for the discussion!

This is a report back from my first day working at Saffron Interactive. Apologies for the short delay, but you’ll understand that I have been very busy for the last month! In an exciting start to my Saffron career I spent my first day attending the Learning and Skills Group (LSG) conference at Olympia – a great way to be introduced to the world of e-learning.

I do not come from an e-learning background but I have always had a keen interest in technology and games and one particular talk really captured my imagination. I’m sure most people are familiar in some form or another with the world of video games whether through PCs or a range of consoles covering all ages and tastes. Gaming however is now beginning to have an effect outside of our leisure time and is becoming prevalent in everyday life, for example the way we shop, network and … learn.

For those unfamiliar with Gamification – a new and growing concept in the world of e-learning – the idea is based on the use of gaming mechanics to increase user engagement whilst delivering key learning objectives. For those still somewhat mystified by the term I have included a definition below;

“Gamification works by making technology more engaging, and by encouraging desired behaviours, taking advantage of humans’ psychological predisposition to engage in gaming.”

Radoff, Jon (2011). Game On: Energize Your Business with Social Media Games. Wiley. pp. xxxii. ISBN 9780470936269.

At the LSG conference, this was explored in depth with a talk from Alicia Sanchez who has been appointed “Games Czar” at the US Defense Acquisition University (DAU).

Alicia’s talk presented some interesting examples, in this case based on military procurement, an area that apparently requires regular and incredibly stringent compliance training. By using the setting of a game, a far more positive response was generated from the workforce in digesting the necessary content for their roles. One such example was a simulation where the user would carry out compliance checks on weapons on the premise of preventing an alien invasion.

What’s more as gaming has begun to take on a social aspect, this can be incorporated into e-learning for even higher levels of engagement. For example, in the same way that Xbox players use “gamer scores” to celebrate achievements and relate to their peers, the DAU allows players to build online profiles giving added value and a social element to their learning achievements. This is also great from a learning provider’s perspective as it provides a method for demonstrating the impact that its courses have on user groups.

If you take this social aspect in combination with a Gamification style of e-learning further, it is also clear how learners working together could gain huge additional benefits in terms of organisation and teamwork given the right environment. In a previous organisation I worked at, the Sales Director actually mused:

“If teenagers can work together in World of Warcraft to be organised and achieve common objectives I do not see why our sales force cannot do the same!”

It will be interesting to see if many of the positive side effects of massively multiplayer gaming would become increasingly prevalent as an additional benefit for this type of delivery. Although I would add a caveat here that had the sales force assembled itself into a 30 man raid group and stormed customers offices (a la World of Warcraft) it may not have gone down well. I do hope however you can see the point I am making In terms of cooperation between departments and employees.

Of course there are limitations to the Gamification of learning. Budgets are always under increased scrutiny and is there as one of my colleagues put it an assumption that “if its fun it can’t be good for you”? Even taking these issues into account it will be interesting to see if this is a view that shifts if Gamification style courses begin to build up a backlog of case studies with quantifiable results. The other long term factor here could be as younger generations of the workforce come into management positions with a greater familiarity with the culture of gaming there will be an increasing appetite at senior levels to champion this as a style of learning.

As a final note I would like mention one of my favourite solutions of this type currently on the market: a revision of House of the Dead which is not only guaranteed to improve users’ typing skills but also looks like great fun!

I look forward to giving some further updates on Gamification from the Saffron perspective in the coming months.

That’s English composer Cornelius Cardew’s title, not mine. It’s also the title of a Confucian text, as translated by Ezra Pound, the first chapter of which Cardew uses within his composition of the same name. It begins as follows:

What The Great Learning teaches is – to illustrate illustrious virtue; to renovate the people; and to rest in the highest excellence.

A couple of weeks ago the Bath Music Festival devoted a day to Cardew’s music; he would have been 75 in May this year. Andrew Clements of the Guardian gave the day 4 stars in his review. I’m glad I was there and not just because my friend Miles was one of the Oxford Improvisers performing Paragraph 5.

Cardew was a joint founder of the Scratch Orchestra in 1969. As this Wikipedia article puts it: “The Orchestra reflected Cardew’s musical philosophy at that time. This meant that anyone could join, graphic scores were used (rather than traditional sheet music), and there was an emphasis on improvisation.” The Great Learning, dedicated to the Scratch Orchestra, was written about the same time and expresses the same ideas: for example, Paragraphs 6 and 7 are written for any number of ‘untrained musicians’ and ‘untrained voices’ respectively. The score for Paragraph 5 is mostly graphical rather than conventional music notation – aside from the optional ‘Ode Machines which may also be performed separately’. One of the most interesting aspects of Cardew’s work is that it leads us to reconsider, if not challenge, our conventional views of score, musicianship and – most important of all – performance.

I think it’s fair to say that Cardew was more interested in the performance of music by people who enjoyed performing and improvising whatever their musical ability, rather than in an audience listening to music performed by trained musicians. Of course a traditional score doesn’t completely determine how a musical work will sound or there would be no point in multiple performances of the same work. But what seems to matter more to Cardew is that the performers take inspiration from the score rather than are instructed by it; he trusts in their passion and judgement.

At this point I want to make a segue to the world of technology-based learning, great or otherwise. I’m well aware of the risk at this point of sounding like a trendy vicar, as in Alan Bennett’s classic ‘Life is rather like opening a tin of sardines; we’re all of us looking for the key’, mercifully preserved here on YouTube, about five and a half minutes in. But with that risk in mind, I’ll continue anyway.

Instructional design, as I’ve blogged here before seems to me a poor description (and a poor aspiration) for what we should be doing when creating a learning experience. Craig Taylor has made a similar point in his blog. And yet, so much online courseware reads like the most prescriptive ‘score’ imaginable, allowing little or no room for initiative or improvisation. In the worst cases (obviously not your work or mine), it’s written by experts to be read by experts. So there should be little wonder when there’s no engagement with, or enthusiasm from, the real target audience.

My suggestion, then, is that we should think about how we could rise to Cardew’s challenge and benefit from the equivalent of committed ‘untrained’ performance. So, if we want to ‘rest in the highest excellence’, let’s take a tip from the improvisers and put more trust in our learners.

PS: Here’s a 30-second taster, if you want to find out more about Cardew’s music: Cornelius Cardew’s Great Learning in Leytonstone Woolies

Inspiration can come from the strangest places. Personally, I think that Jeff Wayne’s musical masterpiece War of the Worlds is a perfect model for effective e-learning. Bear with me on this one.

Most people who work in instructional design agree that learning should be an enjoyable experience. The problem is that we sometimes try to make it too enjoyable, by adding too many characters, storylines, complex interactions and the like, which can have the opposite effect of bewildering the user and losing their attention. War of the Worlds balances music and narration perfectly to immerse the listener in a terrifying world of alien invasion, without once trying to pack too much in and losing sight of the overall goal of telling a story. Sure, plenty of things happen, but they do so in a logical order – aliens blowing up Horsell Common isn’t dropped over the top of the pivotal guitar solo, allowing the listener to enjoy each aspect independently.

So why would we try to use an interaction on every screen whilst five characters vie for our attention? Or have an elaborate background that, whilst being impressive, distracts the user from the content? I’m not saying that we should go back to the image-and-text formula on every page, but that design elements are more effective when they stand out.

I recently saw a ‘learning game’ that had an overload of on-screen features, meaning that my attention was dragged all over the place and I couldn’t properly engage with any of them. Between the flashing boxes, the videos and the perky course guides, I didn’t take in any of the information it was trying to convey. Instead of this, I suggest these guidelines to producing engaging but not overwhelming content:

• Why is that element there? I don’t mean that every colour needs a justification, but if you are putting in a Flash asset, take a moment to think about what it is going to achieve. Does it support the content, or smother it?
• Pick and choose: Don’t be tempted to throw all of your tricks at one screen. Space them out a bit and the user will appreciate them more.
• Have an overarching theme: Make sure that your design elements tie in with one another, so that the result looks clean and stylish.

If you stick to these simple ideas, you should be able to avoid overcrowding your screen and losing out on effect. The learner will be able to engage with each on-screen element separately, and will get much more out of the experience than if they were spending half their time being distracted by neon backgrounds. Plus, you will be able to devote more of your time and energy to creating each section, which should result in a better end product and less time spent rushing to cram one more interaction in. Have fun!

(And listen to War of the Worlds. It will blow your mind.)

By the end of this blog you will:

• Know what a learning objective is and why you need to write them.
• Understand why it’s so important to write learning objectives.
• Be able to write good learning objectives.

I’ve gone mad with learning objectives recently. Yes, there is something cheesy about learning objectives. If learning objectives could talk they’d probably say: ‘Before you can plan your journey you must first know where you want to go.’

But they’re also very useful for those of us designing training. Before you can design your training you need to know what the learners need to learn. The intended outcome should always determine what goes into your course. Why?

• Keeping the end in sight will also help you to select the content that you choose to include in your programme much more wisely. For example, you’ll be less likely to add in token ‘background’ information to provide ‘context’ – if you’re writing a course on the Bribery Act for the entire staff base of an organisation, they don’t need to know that the UK Bribery Act 2010 was legislated in order to bring UK law into line with European law. Remember, you’re not training people how to be lawyers.
• Once you’ve agreed on your learning objectives it will help you persuade your SME that you don’t need to include that drop down menu with all of the Bribery Act’s clauses.
• Most importantly, it will help you keep focused on behavioural change. As the old Saffron saying goes, it doesn’t matter what you know but rather what you can do.

Consider the following learning objectives, which I’ve just put together for a fictional anti-bribery course.

By the end of this course users will:

• Know what the Bribery Act is and what it prohibits.
• Understand why it’s so important to behave in line with the Bribery Act.
• Understand what the Bribery Act stops them from doing in their role.
• Be able to take the right actions when someone offers them a bribe.
• Be able to get on with their day to day duties without breaking the Bribery Act.

What do you think of them? Okay, so we can eliminate the first one. As you will have thought the moment you read it: people don’t need to know what the Bribery Act prohibits, they need to be able to do their job without breaking it. It’s not a knowledge thing, it’s a behaviour thing. With a learning objective like this, the only thing you’ll be sure of is that by the end of the course users won’t be able to get on with their day to day duties without breaching the Bribery Act.

But what about the second one? Or the third? Well, there’s nothing wrong with motivating employees to contemplate the consequences of breaking the law. Someone who’s thought about the consequences of breaking the law is probably more likely to behave in a way that does not break the law. But if all you want is for your employees to behave in line with the law then why not miss out this understanding step? There’s no need to enshrine understanding within a learning objective when teaching someone how to behave in line with the Bribery Act will involve teaching them why it’s important to do so. Unlike in Maths, there’s no need to ’show your working’ – just keep it simple.

So that takes us to the fourth one: ‘At the end of this course users will be able to take the right actions when someone offers them a bribe.’

This is more like it. It focuses on a specific behavioural change and a good one at that. If an employee is to avoid breaking the law they’re going to have to take the right actions in those difficult situations in which they feel that they might be being offered a bribe. But doesn’t being able to avoid accepting a bribe just fall under the wider umbrella objective of being ‘able to get on with their day to day duties without breaking the Bribery Act’ (our last learning objective above)? So why bother with it?

Perhaps I’ve taken this a bit too far. After all, the reason we want to keep the fourth learning objective is that it helps us, as trainers, tailor our training so that it teaches people how to do the things that they need to do in their jobs. The last one, although behaviour focused, is too general. Of course an anti-bribery course should teach users how to avoid breaking bribery laws. But how will it do that? Well, firstly, by teaching them how to behave when confronted with someone who is offering them a bribe.

But what of that tendency that trainers have of informing users of their learning objectives for the course? Many a time I have seen an e-learning course, for instance, that begins with a bullet pointed list of what the learner can be expected to have learnt by the time 60 minutes has elapsed in front of their PC. In fact, I do this in my own courses.

But why do I do this? Does it really help the learner to learn? Let’s reconsider the learning objectives that I gave you at the beginning of this blog.

By the end of this blog you will:

• Know what a learning objective is and why you need to write them.
• Understand why it’s so important to write learning objectives.
• Be able to write good learning objectives.

I think you’ll agree that the first two aren’t particularly good. But putting aside the issue of what makes a good learning objective, do you feel that having these objectives helped you gain something valuable from this blog? Put another way, did my telling you that ‘by the end of this blog you will be able to write good learning objectives’ make it easier for you to learn how to write good learning objectives? If my blog is helpful then surely it would be because it contains useful information or guidance and not because I warned you ahead of time what I intended, or hoped, you would take from it?

If you agree, then perhaps people don’t need to be that self-reflective about their learning. After all, we’re providing training, not therapy. Shouldn’t we allow our courses to speak for themselves?

e-Learning, and the discussions around it, tends to polarise people. Nobody really sits on the fence – broadly speaking, they are for it (normally, those with a keen sense of the cost of training) or they are against it (those who believe in traditional pedagogy).

Those in favour of e-learning, therefore, often tend to come up with arguments along the lines of ‘it’s cheaper, and if we can demonstrate that learners have completed and passed the course, we’ve accomplished the same as much more expensive and time-consuming classroom based training may have done.’

Those against will argue that ‘e-learning might tick all the boxes, but there is no replacement for an instructor-led training session.’ It is ‘impersonal’, ‘un-engaging’ and ‘removed from the learner.’

But which of these perspectives is right? The short answer, I believe, is neither of them.

Let me explain why I think this is. All of the arguments above could just as well apply to an instructor-led session. Cheaper training is always an option, especially with web conferencing and virtual classrooms so readily available. And how many times have you been bored by an instructor or a teacher? Or felt that the content or delivery of training fell short of your expectations?

Writing great e-learning courses is not about emulating the presence of an instructor. The function e-learning should perform is to bridge the gap between learning materials and student. As one might prepare materials for an instructor to deliver to a student, so too must an e-learning course deliver its content – avoiding the same pitfalls that bad instructors fall into: being boring, un-engaging or impersonal.

Harry Calhoun, writing for CEdMA Europe, shows how Anil Mammen mentions four key points for good e-learning that help you bridge this gap:

1) Help the learner ‘internalise’ the content

A learner, whether at a computer or in a classroom, cannot be forced to absorb content. However, you can encourage them. Make your course intellectually challenging, fun and relevant, and they will internalise the course content much more readily.

2) Make the learner pause and think about the concepts and principles illustrated there

Just like in a schoolroom, learners need time to absorb information, which they may do in a plenary or a group exercise. While this luxury is not readily available in e-learning, you should still design courses to have natural pauses for reflection. At Saffron, we use a ‘test then tell’ approach to get learners to think about another topic using their intuition, experience or previous learning (as opposed to the traditional ‘tell-and-test’ approach, which asks the learner to read a lot of information and then tests their memory recall of that information)..

3) Make the learner experience the situations presented in the program

My speciality is systems simulation, but even those courses that are far removed from systems simulations need to engage the learner on a relevant and realistic level. Doing some ‘boring’ compliance training? Why not ask the learner some difficult scenario-based questions? Putting them on the spot tests their behaviour as well as their knowledge, much like an instructor would.

4) Provide the learner with opportunities to solve problems and interact with ideas

The problem of interactivity is an interesting one. Too much, and you risk the learner getting ‘click-fatigue’. Too little, and the course can feel dry. Make sure that the interactions are relevant, and present plausible and engaging problems to the learner. I remember, for example, the puzzle about the farmer who has to get his chicken, a bag of corn and a fox across the river, taking two at a time with him, but not leaving the chicken alone with the fox or the bag of corn (although it can be argued that it is unrealistic, because no farmer would ever try to give a fox a helping hand across a watercourse). Still – it’s a well-thought-out mind-game. Like a great teacher, a good interaction will provoke thought for hours to come.

Why not bear these four points above in mind when you are writing your next e-learning course? You might find yourself naturally writing courses that not only bridge the gap between material and student, but make them wonder why an instructor was ever needed in the first place.

Source:

Harry Calhoun: Why is writing for e-learning different? (April 2006)

After weeks of sharing, discussing and deliberating, earlier this week we announced the winners of our ‘Shoot to Share’ experiment.

The quality of the videos was fantastic, and everyone has their favourite. The number of views alone shows just how valuable our video library is – despite its ‘social learning on a shoestring’ nature. But, as every L&D professional knows, true evaluation relies on more than just stats. We spoke to colleagues, customers, friends and associates to find out what they thought and which videos they found most useful or valuable.

So, without further ado, here are our top three video contributors with a little bit about why we loved what they had to say.

• In third place: Craig Taylor, Urenco

Despite Craig’s role as a learning technologist, his video is actually about combining on-screen activity with real-world tasks away from the computer. We asked Craig what his favourite e-learning interaction is and why. He earned his first brownie point by considering his answer from the perspective of a learner as well as a designer – putting yourself in the learner’s shoes is one of our ID mantras. Craig went on to explain that, for him, the best interactions are those that encourage learners to get up and do something to put the e-learning into context or into practice. Free-text responses need a bit of clever thinking in terms of constructive evaluation and feedback, but we’re big advocates of blended learning and so Craig’s preference for thinking beyond the confines of the computer when designing a self-paced e-learning course gets a thumbs-up from us!

• In second place: Jack Beaman, Fusion Universal

Fusion Universal certainly made a big impact at Learning Technologies, what with their bright pink stand and their exciting new social learning platform – so who better to provide a succinct summary of what’s important about social learning? Jack hits the nail on the head when he recommends transferring practices from our home lives into our work lives. If we need to find something out at home, we don’t book ourselves onto a course or seek out an expert; we turn to Google, YouTube, or whoever happens to be in the room at the time. This, for Jack, is exactly what social learning in the workplace is all about: capturing knowledge across the organisation, and sharing it as widely as possible. We wholeheartedly agree with Jack’s top three tips for doing this effectively: make it short, instantly accessible, and searchable. We couldn’t have said it better ourselves, Jack!

• In first place (drum roll please…): Matt Brewer, Chubb Insurance

Lots of people are able to talk about the things that are wrong with compliance e-learning but struggle to provide tips for how to do it right. Matt is not one of these people! Instead, he makes great use of his 88 seconds to tackle the question of what we can do to make compliance training more effective. What we love about Matt’s video is that he doesn’t just throw out the true-but-tired adjectives (‘practical’, ‘interesting’, ‘realistic’) – instead, he provides some concrete ideas that you can go away and try for yourself. We’re big fans of these top tips from Matt: identify the desired outcomes and select the content accordingly, rather than just chucking everything in; explain why as well as what – provide links to background information or real-life supporting evidence on the topic; and show the consequences of non-compliance, not just for the company, but for individuals. We urge you to keep Matt’s tips in mind when designing your next compliance course – he knows his stuff!

Matt is now the proud new owner of a Flip video camera (the same equipment we used to film all our contributors) – no doubt this fabulous prize will come in handy at family gatherings, but we hope Matt will also use it at work to start developing his own ‘shoot to share’ culture. Congrats Matt, and let us know how you get on!

So, there you have it. Thanks to everyone who contributed to our video library, and to everyone who shared and provided feedback on the clips. If you haven’t yet seen these videos, they and the rest of the library can still be watched on our YouTube channel. Whether you’re looking for tips on making the most of social media, want to find out exactly what a QR code is, or need some ideas for evaluating your e-learning, there’s a video for you!

I have often seen courses where the learner has to read information in a popup on clicking a button. This click appears with its associated learner instruction and at times is just ornamentation on the screen. If this happens too frequently in a course, the learner starts responding in almost ‘Pavlov-esque’ fashion: a conditioned reflex (okay, so it was the dog and not Pavlov that responded, but you see my point!). The course is no longer entertaining and certainly not engaging. However by definition you could say it is interactive!

So here’s something I have done in the past to help the learner be a more ‘active’ participant in the course: I use scenarios. Instead of a button click for information, the learner is placed in a particular position and asked to respond. The situation does not necessarily flow from the content before it, but is not totally disconnected from it either. Responses can be simply yes/no, true/false options (although we at Saffron try to avoid these – here’s why), or slightly more complicated multiple choice options. In either case, it makes the learner pause and think, and thus the learner is more actively involved in the course.

As an example, consider the following:

“Six Sigma originated as a set of practices designed to improve manufacturing processes and eliminate defects, but its application was subsequently extended to other types of business processes as well.

In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as any process output that does not meet customer specifications, or that could lead to creating an output that does not meet customer specifications.”

With all due respect to the contributors at Wikipedia, this would hardly be the best way to present information for learners in an e-learning module. A number of people would tackle it as follows:

• Rewrite the first paragraph.
• Consider including the second paragraph in a popup with a button labelled ‘Defect’.

I admit I have been party to such a line of thought many times. With hindsight, however, I propose the following, slightly more interesting, solution:

• Rewrite the first paragraph for clarity. For example – Six Sigma is a set of rules developed to perfect manufacturing processes by reducing defects. Its principles have recently been extended to improve other types of business processes as well.
• In place of the second paragraph, position the learner in a scenario. For example:

The latest MPhone Touch2010 mobile phone advertisement is awesome! You order one over the internet immediately. On receiving the product, however, you find that the touch sensors are not working properly. Which of the following responses are you most likely to choose?

A. You call MPhone and give them a piece of your mind. You ask for a replacement handset immediately.

B. You take it to the nearest MPhone store and have them replace it. All’s well that ends well.

C. You ask for a full refund and pledge to yourself that you are never buying an MPhone again.

Feedback:

A. As well you should, some might say! This is clearly a defective product and not what you expected. Whatever happened to quality control? Had the company adhered to Six Sigma, the chances of this happening would have been quite remote. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as any process output that does not meet customer specifications, or that could lead to creating an output that does not meet customer specifications.

B. That’s nice of you! There’s no point taking it out on the poor guys at customer care. It’s not their fault that the product has a defect, after all. But had the company adhered to Six Sigma, the chances of this happening would have been quite remote. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as any process output that does not meet customer specifications, or that could lead to creating an output that does not meet customer specifications.

C. I don’t blame you! A defective product can be quite frustrating. Had the company adhered to Six Sigma, the chances of this happening would have been quite remote. In Six Sigma, a defect is defined as any process output that does not meet customer specifications, or that could lead to creating an output that does not meet customer specifications.

When compared to the original piece of text, or to the click and popup box suggestion, this approach is more thought-provoking and more engaging (and ultimately more effective). It provides meaningful interaction, as opposed to interaction for the sake of it.

So, consider yourself in a position where you have just received content from the client. Going through it you find that you are tempted to use a popup. What do you do? I’ll leave it up to you to figure out the options for this one.

Someone came onto our stand at the Learning Technologies the other week and asked, ‘OK, so you people at Saffron know social learning. What about anti-social learning?’ That intriguingly sly question got me thinking about what our role is in facilitating learning in our customers’ organisations: what exactly is it that we be should aiming to design and implement?

Consider the best versus the worst experience of “instructor-led training” in the classroom. The worst is staring at the back of someone who’s facing his or her slides and reading out the bullet points in an emotionless monotone (while you’re reading them at a different speed). The best is being in a class with a trainer who engages you and everybody else in the room in a dialogue about the subject. For example, the trainer may ask you a question but, instead of telling you whether your answer is correct or incorrect, then asks other members of the class for their opinion of your response. All answers are good answers: it’s important to know whether you’re right or wrong but it’s just as important to know why.

Today e-learning is an essential part of the training blend, in order to meet both organisations’ and learners’ expectations of availability, cost and timeliness. At Saffron we design e-learning that aspires to the best classroom experience – e-learning that makes eye contact – as you’ll know if you’ve been following the Spicy Learning Blog. Within the constraints of the medium, we aim to hold a conversation with our learners, anticipating and answering their concerns. For all that, e-learning remains a solitary, self-paced, self-study experience and one that perhaps runs the risk of becoming anti-social learning.

Social learning acknowledges a well known but often ignored truth that people learn best when they’re motivated to teach themselves and others. Adding social learning to the training blend counters any anti-social bias in e-learning design and provides a powerful underpinning for an organisational change programme, where the aim is to explain, motivate and persuade and not just to instruct.

That brings me to my title. Musing on anti-social learning got me thinking about why I don’t like “instructional design” as a name for what we do. The term instruction reminds me too much of PE at school: Arms Up! Bend Knees! Stretch! Instruction, in that sense, is completely contrary to the tone of our courses (and yours too, I hope). What we actually aim to design is a complete programme: an enjoyable, engaging and effective experience that uses, in each case, an appropriate blend of instructor-led, self-study and social learning.

So here’s my suggestion. Why don’t we call ourselves learning experience designers rather than instructional designers? It applies, incidentally, as much to our graphic designers and programmers of interactions as it does to those of us who write the storyboards. In other words, let’s set ourselves the expectation that, collectively, we design learning experiences, not instruction!

Imagine that a group of people each have a box with something in it. Let’s call it a ‘beetle.’ No one can look into anyone else’s box, and everyone says they know what a beetle is only by looking at their beetle. It would be possible that everyone has something different in their box. Maybe the box is even empty.

This is the same problem that we, as project leads, face every time we start a new project with a client: how do I know that I’ve understood what the client wants?

With some things it’s easy. How long do you want the course to last? 20 minutes. What data do you need the course to track? Completion status, name and job title. But questions such as ‘How faithfully should I follow the content provided?’ won’t necessarily get you a definitive answer. And force feeding these answers through the Jeremy Paxman quiz maker isn’t yet an option available to the contemporary e-learning designer.

For instance, how do you know whether your client understands the technical limitations of rapid development tools when they opt to use them to build their company’s e-learning? Maybe you thought you’d explained it to them during the kick off meeting, and they made all the outward visible signs of understanding, but when you sent them the end product they asked you to add in a flashing button.

Perhaps one of the biggest mistakes a project lead can make is to make assumptions about what a client knows. You don’t have to err too far on the side of caution and assume that your client knows nothing. But you do need to know whether your client’s understanding of ‘highly animation based’ is simply your default Flash course or an ultra hi-tech, multimedia-intensive learning extravaganza.

So, how do we solve this ‘Beetle in the box’ problem?

Improve your communications pattern.

If you’re concerned that you may not be able to deliver what a client has asked for, then it might be worth spending a bit more time liaising with your client. What clients expect at the beginning of a project may be radically different from what they expect mid-way through or even towards the end of the project life cycle. This is particularly true if your client is new to e-learning. After a couple of storyboard and interim releases, their understanding of the possibilities grow and so too can their demands for the course. You can then find yourself having to manage the expectations of an overzealous client.

Have regular conversations with your client. We find it helps to hold weekly teleconferences with project stakeholders to plot the project’s progress against the evolving expectations of our clients. Taking meeting and call notes helps because it gives your client the opportunity to confirm your understanding and ensure that you’re on the right track.

Meet your client’s needs and manage their expectations.

Not all projects that fail to meet client expectations do so because of a breakdown in communications. Sometimes a client may be unrealistic with their own expectations; they ask for their course to be built using a rapid development tool, fully aware of its limitations, but on seeing the end product change their minds. Ultimately, this client had something else in their box. And it’s our responsibility to make sure we manage expectations.

Sometimes, it’s necessary to focus more on what you believe an organisation needs. After all, we’re e-learning consultants as well as service providers.  Expectations are sometimes based on personal opinions rather than on what the course needs to achieve; so whilst I may not be able to visualise the look and feel that my client has printed in their head, I can recognise that if my client wants his staff to comply with the UK Bribery Act then they’re going to have to be taught how to complete an expenses form.

We’re always looking for ways to become better at identifying what our clients expect of the learning solutions we design for them. Understanding a client’s expectations will help to minimise those last minute change requests that can throw a whole project off schedule, and it will also help to ensure that you deliver high quality products that meet the needs of the company and its learners. A course that cannot meet its learner’s needs really is no better than an empty box.

Mantras such as ‘check, check and check again’ are often bandied around in the workplace, but what can we do to make sure our QA of everything we roll out is 100 per cent foolproof?

I recently bought a bottle of wine which the label described as ‘A crips dry white’. My friends and I thought this was hilarious; the point being that we all love to spot mistakes. Unsurprisingly, this isn’t the reaction we want our learners to have when they are completing our courses! So we’ve selected ten basic top tips to prompt the reviewer and help you to make sure nothing gets through your QA.

1. Check the textual, visual and functional

It can be easy to prioritise one aspect of an e-learning course, but they are all equally important. It can help to complete one QA focusing on the text, then another on the visual and so on.

2. Ten or 10?

Agree a rule, and then stick to it and make sure it’s always followed. We prefer to write out numbers up to nine, and then use the characters for all numbers that are higher.

3. Is the instruction text accurate and up to date?

Make sure the text aligns with what appears on the screen. If an image or interaction has been moved then the instruction text will need updating too.

4. ‘It’s’ or ‘its’?

‘It’s’ should be used when abbreviating ‘It is’ and ‘its’ can be used in all other instances. It’s worth double checking your use of this, as spell-check and autocorrect have been known to get it wrong.

5. The capitals conundrum

The appropriate use of capital letters has been the basis of many a debate between instructional designers. Decide on rules and then stick to them. If an icon reads ‘Next’ or ‘Resources’, then retaining the capital letters when the icon is mentioned in the main text will aid usability. The rules that you agree may have to be bent at times, as some companies like the use of capitals and some don’t. Always check the relevant branding guidelines to make sure you’re writing within them.

6. Which side of the pond?

Find out whether e-learning needs to be written in UK or US English and then check against common errors when completing a QA. For instance, have you used the correct version of ‘learnt’ vs. ‘learned’, or ‘preventive’ vs. ‘preventative’?

7. Always stir your coffee

For words such as ‘practice’ and ‘practise’ it’s an ‘s’ for a verb and a ‘c’ for a noun… so stir your coffee! If you’re writing in US English the rules will differ, so bear this in mind.

8. Don’t confuse your hyphens (-) and dashes (–)

A hyphen is shorter than a dash, and is used to compound words such as ‘e-learning’. A dash is longer and is used to separate clauses.

9. A company is singular

Companies, teams and departments should all be referred to in the singular. For instance, ‘Saffron has an e-learning blog’ and ‘The instructional design team has developed the storyboarding process.’

10. Does everything work?

Even if you are satisfied that everything is working as it should be, try to complete a final functionality QA before a release. This way you’ll pick up any issues that may have found their way into a course since your last review.

• Does everything click, drag and rollover as it should?
• Do all URLs and downloads work?