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!

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.

Working as an instructional designer is a very logical thing for a student of English. There’s plenty of reading, for a start, and the variety of material is a great way of keeping your literacy razor sharp. But there’s often the temptation to lapse into Modern Business Jargon (let’s call it MBJ). For example, starting an email with:

‘Dear Whatsit,

Please find attached for your review…’

Or ending with:

‘…and this, going forward, should ensure that project timescales are adhered to.

Kind regards,

Etc. etc.’

What’s really funny is that when you speak to someone who does this, they are – more often than not – not actually in the employ of Q Branch or some other excessively jargonistic and bureaucratic cobwebbed corner of central government.

So why does seating people in front of Outlook give them this bizarre elevation of style? And why does it creep into our work? As an instructional designer, I make it my daily crusade to weed out these little glimpses of the highfalutin author in us all. But why ask me when we can go back and read some Orwell instead? So here are six top tips for your writing, in a small (but heartfelt) homage to George.

i. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.

Fairly self-explanatory. I’d summarise this one as ‘NO CLICHÉS PLEASE (WE’RE BRITISH)’.

ii. Never use a long word where a short one will do.

At a recent workshop at BT, I learned that it’s okay to use words like ‘get’ (instead of ‘obtain’), ‘do’ (instead of ‘perform’) and ‘add’ (instead of ‘integrate’).

iii. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.

A good example from Moira: ‘Please accept my apologies for this oversight.’ Why not just ‘sorry for the mistake’? Personally, if I had to first of all suffer the inconvenience of a costly mistake, the last thing I’d want to do is waste 30 seconds of time getting to the point of a long-winded apology. Brevity is… wit.

iv. Never use the passive when you can use the active.

Ever find yourself writing something along the lines of ‘this is usually actioned by the client management team’? Try using ‘the client team usually do this’. It gets the point across much more clearly and succinctly. Across a half-hour course, ten passive-to-active revisions can have a huge impact on its overall legibility.

v. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.

This is one of my favourites – when writing a course for an English audience, write in English. Sounds obvious, but in actual fact, using words with the English roots rather than (say) Latin ones, can make a course easier to read because it will scan better. For example, use ‘ask’ (actually a word with its root in West Germanic) instead of ‘inquire’. An important thing to remember, especially if you are writing for a wide audience.

iv. Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.

Aha, the ‘sense-check’ at the end. Ultimately, the choice of language will rest with you and your own understanding of what you are writing and what message you need to convey. There’s no sense in wasting time reinventing the wheel and trying to find an English equivalent for ‘Schadenfreude’.

Here are a few links to get you started on your own voyage of rediscovering the simple English language:

• George Orwell: Politics and the English Language (1946)
• Plain English Campaign

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?

What is the Multiple Intelligences theory?

For the most part, it’s common sense! Penned by Howard Gardener in 1983, the theory describes what those of us who went to school already knew: Different people learn in different ways.

Gardener initially described seven basic intelligences. They are:

• Linguistic intelligence: demonstrating abilities with spoken and written language.
• Logical-mathematical intelligence: the capacities to analyse problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically.
• Musical intelligence: skill in the performance, composition, and recognition of music, patterns or rhythms.
• Kinaesthetic intelligence: using the body or parts of the body to solve problems; learning by doing.
• Spatial (or visual) intelligence: interpreting, recognising and using visual cues such as images and charts and the ability to perceive objects in space.
• Interpersonal intelligence: the ability to understand the intentions and motivations of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others.
• Intrapersonal intelligence: the capacity to understand oneself, appreciating your own feelings, fears and motivations.

The idea of multiple intelligences is now widely accepted in education, and teachers are encouraged to utilise methods that stimulate each of these to get pupils to engage in lessons. The theory is even widely utilised in corporate training.

How can we apply this to e-learning?

There is no reason why multiple intelligences should not be catered for in e-learning. Just because the audience is accessing the course online, it doesn’t mean that all of the users now miraculously learn in the same way – they don’t. As an instructional designer, you need to design courses with a variety of interactions that will allow you to keep learners engaged by appealing to their specific intelligences. I’ve briefly described some examples of how you can do this.

Linguistic: Conversation-style scenarios and links to online forums or chat rooms will benefit linguistic learners. You can also use additional information pop-ups throughout the course or get the learner to use a ‘notepad’ facility to jot down ideas they have as the course progresses.

Logical-mathematical: This type of learner enjoys problem solving activities such as arranging the steps in a diagram or working out the correct answer using a series of clues. Using graphics such as Venn diagrams to illustrate your point will also engage this type of learner.

Musical: You can use word-plays, such as mnemonics, to solidify learning for individuals with musical intelligence. Using audio case studies will engage these learners (but don’t forget to include a transcript for learners that prefer to read the information). Using sounds and music that are relevant to the learning are also good practice.

Kinaesthetic: You can really engage your kinaesthetic learners by giving them the freedom to explore virtual environments and do activities that require them to get physically involved, such as drag and drop interactions.

Spatial (or visual) intelligence: Using graphics and images to back up the information you’re providing will really help to engage visual learners. Avoid using images that aren’t applicable to the learning as these can detract from the message you’re trying to give. A good way of engaging visual learners is to ask them to choose the correct image to answer a question, rather than just sentences.

Interpersonal intelligence: You can stimulate interpersonal intelligence using well constructed scenarios. Ask the learner to put themselves in someone else’s shoes to make a decision, or provide advice to a fictional colleague. Get your learners involved with other learners by providing links to online forums and chat rooms.

Intrapersonal intelligence: Intrapersonal intelligence focuses on the internal aspect to learning and using reflective exercises is a great way to engage these individuals. Ask your learners to think about how they can apply what they’ve learned to their specific circumstances. Provide links for further private study, as these will often appeal to the intrapersonal learner.

These are just a few ideas. There is so much more that you can do to ensure that the courses you design are engaging for the full range of learners. Just remember that variety is the key; add a little something for everybody and you’re sure to produce a course that all of your learners will enjoy. Next time you’re storyboarding, try it for yourself!

An interesting debate has begun in our office of late – to storyboard or not to storyboard? I can almost hear the collective intake of breath that I dared even ask this question, but here at Saffron we are all about challenging norms and finding new solutions to old problems, so I’m going to push forward regardless.
 
To even begin a debate on this topic, we have to consider why storyboards appeared in the e-learning space to begin with. Typically used in the film industry, storyboards are a tool designed to simulate flow and movement, mapping out a story scene by scene. It’s a case of being able to see individual trees in detail, but then being able to stand back and appreciate the whole forest. The concept of storyboards relies heavily on the visual aspect, and is particularly useful to demonstrate a sequence: mapping out how the cops get the bad guy, or how Bambi and his mother are happily reunited after the near-fatal shooting – ok, well that one is more wishful thinking than reality, but you get my point.

In e-learning, storyboards are primarily a tool to help articulate your vision to a client. With them, you can show your client how their ideas and content have been streamlined into a smooth-flowing, engaging and educational course. As learning professionals, we already know that not everyone learns in the same way, and this of course is also true of clients. Having a visual representation in front of you can help to focus a client’s attention, giving them a sense of how a project is developing while gently steering them away from an information dump and towards an instructionally sound course. It’s all too easy to feel you haven’t quite explained exactly how to insert pin A into slot F while simultaneously pushing buttons D & E – but when you have a nice clear diagram storyboarded in front of you with a punchy little explanation, it is all the more easier to just let go.

So, storyboards are great then, right? Well, the short answer is ‘not always’. Sometimes the process of storyboarding can just add extra hours (and therefore costs) to an otherwise simple project. Just how much time do you put into a storyboard, and how much detail do you include? I have worked on projects where developing storyboards becomes almost a project in itself – complete with graphics, animated transitions and branding already incorporated. The clients love it, but it doesn’t do your project timelines any favours when the inevitable changes are requested. It’s also terribly easy to deviate from an in-depth analysis of content, and instead get caught up in the look and feel.

Like so much else, the key to storyboarding is striking a balance. Good storyboarding is about creating flow and mapping out the journey ahead – whether it’s for yourself or your client; on a piece of paper or in your head. It is about the process more than the tools – if you can clearly articulate your vision without a storyboard (and your client trusts you enough that they don’t need to see one) then great – you’ve just bought yourself extra development time. But if you feel that you might lose track and say, inadvertently re-write a key defining moment in a certain small deer’s life – then perhaps you’d better stick with more tried and tested methods.

I don’t think we have a one-size-fits-all solution to this one, but I’m really looking forward to continuing the debate. Don’t let me steer you in any one direction – what are your thoughts? What works for you?

If you had to pick your favourite e-learning interaction, which would it be, and why? For me it’s easy: the myth and reality screen takes the top spot. “But why?” I hear you cry. Here are my top three reasons (although I do have many more!):

Simplicity

Myth and reality screens are the simplest form of drag and drop interactions and that’s one of the reasons why I like them. I’ve seen complicated interactions where the learner has to drag hundreds of boxes to a multitude of different places, but I’m not always convinced how effective this really is. The screen is jam-packed, there’s too much to read and, if I’m being honest, I just find myself randomly dragging the boxes to anywhere on the screen to see if they stick. The whole process is tedious and becomes a race against time to see how long it’ll take to make the Next button appear. But with myth and reality screens it’s different. There are only two destinations to drag to so it’s not so overwhelming trying to make a decision. You also only get one statement at a time which allows you to really consider each piece of information carefully and absorb the learning. And you get the satisfaction of receiving feedback regularly throughout the process which helps to maintain motivation.

Versatility

The myth and reality screen can be your saving grace in a wide variety of situations. Have you ever found yourself asking the learner a multiple choice quiz question for which all of the answers are correct? Avoid falling into the ‘All of the above apply’ trap and use your imagination to create some myths and adapt these into a myth or reality screen. Do you often struggle to find a way to include a long list of facts and figures in a course? With a bit of careful tweaking the long list can be transformed into a myth busting exercise where the learner plays the starring role. Ever found yourself overusing scenarios, that is, having sequences of text and image or conversation screens followed by a ”What would you do next?“ quiz question? Go to your friend, the good old myth and reality interaction, and use it to help the learner practise identifying the correct courses of action.

Engagement

Have you ever watched Mythbusters? People love it when a commonly thought truth is exposed as a myth and this can happen in an e-learning course. Adding an element of ”Oh, I didn’t know that!” helps to keep your learners awake and interested. And it’s easy to ‘jazz up’ a myth and reality screen with graphics or an element of gaming to further help keep the learner engaged. For example, why not have the learner literally screw up and throw the myths into a rubbish bin? Or use a points system on that screen to see how many myths they can bust. We’re in a world of instant gratification and it’s quick and easy to achieve this with a simple myth and reality screen.

Here are a few of my favourite uses for the myth or reality screen:

• To introduce the key themes of a course
• To dispel misconceptions
• To identify problems or issues
• To practise what you should and shouldn’t do
• To recap on learning points
• And probably more!

I could go on explaining more of the reasons why I love this type of screen but I’ll save that for another blog. Instead, I’d be interested to hear your thoughts. Do you agree or disagree that myth and reality screens are the best interactions (sorry, you can’t drag and drop your answer here!), or do you have a different favourite interaction, and why?

How often do you learn something new? And I mean completely new – something you’ve never heard of before or perhaps something you’ve never tried. What’s the process that you go through to learn this new knowledge or skill?

I’ve recently learnt something new, something I’d never dared try before – rollerblading. Now I know that the typical e-learning course isn’t daunting, potentially painful nor, to be frank, initially terrifying but I’ve been surprised at how many parallels can be drawn from my experience of learning this new skill and the way information can be taught and conveyed in e-learning.

In an online course, the learner might be introduced to a topic and taken through it step by step. Gradually, as they progress through the training, their knowledge increases until by the end they have achieved a desired level of competence which might be assessed in an end of course test. Now, priding myself on having an element of balance, I had hoped that I’d master the basics fairly quickly. However, I soon learnt that balance isn’t enough on wheels; I struggled to keep track of what my feet were doing and even where they were going! So how did my ever patient instructor teach a nervous and uncoordinated person to learn something totally alien to them? I noticed that his approach was very similar to that used in an effective e-learning course.
 

Animation and video can be an interesting way to convey information, replacing static text and image screens and increasing the learner’s engagement. Likewise, instead of telling me how to perform a parallel turn, my instructor would show me. That might sound pretty obvious but, most importantly, he then challenged me to do it myself – alone. Practice makes perfect, apparently! Furthermore, rather than telling me why I wobbled or, embarrassingly, fell flat on my backside, he would ask me why I thought I was finding something difficult or what I thought I was doing wrong. This test then tell approach was definitely crucial to my learning as it made me think for myself whilst forcing me to correct my mistakes as they happened, which is always the best way to learn (and remember) information.

I know that I wouldn’t have absorbed half of the information given to me if my instructor had merely told me the facts. It’s the hows and the whys that have increased my knowledge the most, improved my ability to balance and move on eight wheels and, of course, motivated me to persevere! Clearly, explaining the reasons for complying with something like a process or regulation and outlining the benefits of a certain behaviour or approach will be far more encouraging and inspiring – and luckily those taking Saffron’s e-learning courses will be able to practise and make mistakes in a far more safe environment than when rollerblading!

A storyboard review stage is crucial as it’s hard to be objective when you’re the one who’s written the content. Here are our top ten questions to ask yourself if you’re the one reviewing someone else’s storyboard.

1. Are the basics in place?
Before you even start reviewing the content of a course, check the obvious (but easy to miss) things like headers and footers, dates and page numbers. Are these clear and consistent throughout?

2. Does the format support the right focus?
Our instructional designers storyboard in Microsoft Word which places a valuable emphasis on the most important aspect of any e-learning course – the text content. This enables reviewers to focus on the words without distraction.

3. Is it reader-friendly?
The layout of a storyboard can either help or hinder a review. Notes should inform you of what to focus on along with clear instructions explaining each screen. Requests for further information should also be clear and prominent.

4. Does it answer the learner’s questions?
Review the storyboard as if you’re the learner – what do you already know about the subject and what are you hoping this training will enable you to do? During the review, check if your questions are being answered and if not, why not?

5. Are you convinced?
It’s often very obvious if the storyboard author hasn’t completely understood the business need and subject matter. Can you spot any gaps in information, or any sections that raise more questions than they answer?

6. Does it fit in with the company’s culture?
Many companies have a particular identity and tone of voice. The learner is much more likely to be engaged and alter their behaviour if the course reflects this, and if it’s written in plain English with a conversational tone.

7. Are you actively involved – in the right things?
All good training is interactive – most people will switch off if they’re just reading, or listening, not actually doing anything. Are you being actively included in the most valuable learning points and are these conveyed effectively?

8. Can you transfer the learning to real life?
The best way to change behaviour is to use scenarios that put the learner in a realistic situation. Are they being asked to make a decision, identify a problem or suggest a solution? If so, then they’ll be able to do the right thing in real life.

9. Do you always know where you are?
A logical and clear structure will help the content flow, which will naturally aid the learner’s understanding. As you review the training, bear this in mind and identify any areas where you think better signposting could be used.

10. Are you being made to think for yourself?
Telling someone something and testing them on it afterwards tests memory, not understanding. Does the training that you’re reviewing ask the learner to think for themselves and draw on their own experiences to reach the right answer?

Download:

Top ten tips for reviewing a storyboard

The challenge facing instructional designers is always to think of new ways to make our learning courses interesting, engaging and effective. We look at how we can make the best course possible by focusing on the technologies, design, graphics, content and writing style, but what about thinking about a course’s personality?

Elsewhere we see exciting, coherent characters achieving great things – from the memorable classroom trainer who relates the content to their personal past experiences, to Lady Gaga, who has created an intriguing stage persona which she continues in interviews and when dining out.

The first way to give an e-learning course personality that springs to mind is the inclusion of a course guide. This course guide should be carefully selected – whether it is an employee or an actor, it should be pitched correctly. Your guide should be believable and representative of the client company, but should also have character; a suitable voiceover can help to enhance this. After all, what’s more engaging – a stony faced guide standing with their arms by their sides, or a smiling course character gesturing towards something on the screen?

However, a course guide is not essential! There are a number of other ways to give a course personality, such as including distinctive hand drawn illustrations and choosing an unusual font and writing style. In this way you can design a course which will establish a rapport with the learner, and has the potential to surprise them. Once you have constructed your course’s personality and established the bones of it, the same persona should be continued to each small part of the course, including how it is communicated and marketed to its end users.

To make sure that it works, all the components should be consistent, as any contradictions will detract from the personality you have created. By ensuring that each part of a course is both distinctive and coherent, you can establish an engaging and memorable personality for your course.