Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
F e b r u a r y 3
Strategies and Techniques for Designers, Developers, and Managers of eLearning
A publication of
THIS WEEK — DEVELOPMENT TECHNIQUES
2003
In this first article of a two-part series, youwill get an in-depthlook at how Deere &Company designedand developed an e-Learning programthat takes advantageof guided discoveryteaching methods and leverages thepower of reusablelearning objects tosolve a critical busi-ness issue. Thisexcellent article addsto the growing body of case evidence that learning objectsreally can be reused!Read and learn howthey did it...
Guided Discovery Teaching Methodsand Reusable Learning ObjectsBY KIM E. RUYLE AND PEDER JACOBSEN
This is the first article in a two-part series that pres-ents an e-Learning case study. In this article, the proj-ect is described with particular attention to two of the
goals of the application: 1) to use effective guided discoverymethods and 2) to achieve reusability with learning objects(LOs). The organization of the course and instructionalstrategies are explored in some detail. In the next issue ofThe eLearning Developers’ Journal, part two in this series
will explore the technical underpinnings ofthe application, lessons learned, andthoughts about future applications of LOs.
The allure of guided discoveryTeaching methods can be classified
along a continuum of the level of instruc-tor-centeredness vs. learner-centeredness.At one end of the spectrum are instructor-centered expository methods such as thelecture. These expository methods aregenerally regarded as highly efficientmeans of delivering learning content, albeitwith somewhat unreliable levels of quality;the effectiveness of a lecture, for instance,is highly dependent on the skill of the lec-turer. At the other end of the spectrum
are learner-centered methods such asguided discovery and problem-basedinstruction. While these methods losesomething in efficiency and neatness, theygain a lot in levels of learner engagement.And even a cursory search of the researchliterature shows that instruction is general-ly more effective when learners 1) feelaccountable for their learning, and 2) areactively involved in the learning experience.
So here’s the dilemma. Instructionaldesigners, while enchanted by the simplici-ty and efficiency of linear expository meth-ods, long to break free from doing a “con-tent dump” to give learners real experi-ences — messy, nonlinear, less pre-
Continued on next page
W W W. E L E A R N I N G G U I L D . C O M
dictable experiences that occur with guideddiscovery, experimentation, inquiry, prob-lem- and case-based instruction, and even,(Dare we say it?) constructivism (see Con-structivism sidebar on page 3). Thesemethods can be difficult to design anddeliver online, but the allure is powerful.Consider the following scenarios. Which ismore engaging? Which is more interac-tive? Which is more likely to lead to theability to synthesize or evaluate?
1) Learners complete a course by read-ing a few screens of information and then“interact” with the content by performing adrag-and-drop matching exercise or answera multiple choice question as part of a“knowledge check.” This is repeated adnauseam until the course is completed.
2) Learners complete a course by solv-ing complex problems that are presentedin a meaningful context. The problems areneither trivial nor simply a replica of pre-ceding content. Students must solve theproblems by using their own devices andwhatever knowledge they’ve accumulatedto this point. Answers are far from obvi-ous; solution paths are fuzzy and failure isallowed. Reflection is a natural reaction.Learners might not be “interacting” in any
observable way (by moving the mouse, forinstance), but they must really think. Theirbrain is engaged because it has to be toreach their goal.
Learner-centered methods such as guid-ed discovery imply true engagement,meaningful interaction, and reduceddropout rates. Learner-centered methodsembrace learning by doing. Guided discov-ery e-Learning applications should mean-ingfully engage learners in the content, provide opportunity for reflection, andstress application. These applicationsshun meaningless activity in the guise of“interactivity.”
The appeal of reusabilityContent reusability accompanies guided
discovery as one of the stepping-stones toe-Learning utopia. Reusability can beattained, it is hoped, by employing learningobjects and standards, such as SCORM, to ensure interoperability. If reusability isachieved in organizations like ours (Deere& Company, a manufacturing firm locatedin the heart of the American mid-West), itwill provide huge benefits. We haveworked with companies in which dozens ofpeople are employed creating content for
2FE
BR
UA
RY
3,
20
03
/ T
HE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JO
UR
NA
L
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
Symposium
The
A Winter Intensive for e-Learning Managers and DirectorsFebruary 27 & 28, 2003Scottsdale, Arizona
Produced by
www.eLearningGuild.com
Learn more about this symposium, it’s all online atwww.eLearningGuild.com!
Registrations are strictly limited so Register Today! You can register online or by phone by calling 707.566.8990.
What’s meaningful for one population
segment is nonsense
to another. Reusable
Learning Objects, the
least granular of the
objects [we] discussed,
are most difficult to
reuse because they, of
necessity, contain contex-
tual elements, practice,
and assessment compo-
nents that severely
limit reusability.
paper documentation, such as productservice manuals. Many other people inthese same organizations are employedcreating parallel content for web applica-tions, such as for product service training.Although content overlaps, writers and edi-tors do not currently have an easy way todetermine where content is stored or if iteven exists. There are multiple contentrepositories and content management sys-tems. These issues, if resolved, presentan enormous opportunity for increased pro-ductivity, reduced cost, and improved quali-ty of information.
This article, the first in this two-partseries, presents a case study that con-verges with the learner-centered andreusability themes. A comprehensive e-Learning application was designed toemploy guided discovery teaching methodswithin an architecture based on learningobjects.
Case overviewBefore getting into the instructional
strategies and reusability strategies wedecided upon it is useful to understandwhy we were doing the project and what we were trying to achieve.
Situation and problem statement
Senior leaders in the organization, start-ing with the CEO, have embraced Share-holder Value Added (SVA) as a key strate-gic initiative of the enterprise. SVA is afinancial indicator that shows how well aninvestment performs relative to an expect-ed rate of return. Companies with highSVA values are viewed as better long-terminvestments than companies with low SVAvalues. Financial returns to investors aredetermined by free cash flow generated by
operations and by growth in share value.To drive improvements in these metrics,leadership has focused on increasing oper-ating return on assets (ORoA), measuredas follows:
Operating Margin x Asset Turns = ORoA
This is a useful formula, but not readilyunderstood by and meaningful to manyemployees. It is not enough to providecommunication about the importance ofSVA or ORoA. In fact, continuing to urgeemployees to increase SVA withoutincreasing their comprehension and coach-ing them in specific desired behaviors islikely to lead to ambivalence or cynicism.
Problem:The business is unlikely toreach its ORoA and SVA targets unless abroad cross-section of employees under-stand these concepts well enough to applythem to their individual jobs.
A multi-level blended solution
To solve this problem, a blended learn-ing solution and comprehensive communi-cation strategy was developed. The instru-ctional components of this strategyinclude:
A workshop. The Building a GreatBusiness Workshop is one part of theseries of messages and learning opportu-nities designed to engage all employees inefforts to create a business that servesemployees, customers, and shareholdersequally well. The workshop was designedto reinforce the chairman’s message to allemployees, and do it in a way that is inter-active and fun. The workshop is deliveredto small groups of 12 to 24 participants ina time frame of two hours or less. Thingsmove quickly, especially because partici-
THE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JOU
RN
AL
/ FEB
RU
AR
Y 3, 2
00
3 3
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
The eLearning Developers’ Journal™ is design-ed to serve the industry as a catalyst for inno-vation and as a vehicle for the dissemination ofnew and practical strategies and techniques fore-Learning designers, developers and man-agers. The Journal is not intended to be thedefinitive authority. Rather, it is intended to be a medium through which e-Learning practi-tioners can share their knowledge, expertiseand experience with others for the general betterment of the industry.
As in any profession, there are many differ-ent perspectives about the best strategies,techniques and tools one can employ to accom-plish a specific objective. This Journal will sharethese different perspectives and does not posi-tion any one as “the right way,” but rather weposition each article as “one of the right ways”for accomplishing a goal. We assume thatreaders will evaluate the merits of each articleand use the ideas they contain in a mannerappropriate for their specific situation. Weencourage discussion and debate about articlesand provide an Online Discussion board foreach article.
The articles contained in the Journal are allwritten by people who are actively engaged inthis profession at one level or another — not by paid journalists or writers. Submissions arealways welcome at any time, as are sugges-tions for articles and future topics. To learnmore about how to submit articles and/orideas, please refer to the directions in the side-bar on page 8 or visit www.eLearningGuild.com.
Publisher David Holcombe
Editorial Director Heidi Fisk
Editor Bill Brandon
Copy Editor Charles Holcombe
Design Director Nancy Marland
The eLearning Guild™ Advisory BoardRuth Clark, Conrad Gottfredson, John Hartnett,
Bill Horton, Kevin Moore, Eric Parks, Brenda PfausMarc Rosenberg, Allison Rossett
Copyright 2003. The eLearning Developers’ Journal™.Compilation copyright by The eLearning Guild 2003. Allrights reserved. Please contact The eLearning Guild forreprint permission.
The eLearning Developers’ Journal is published weeklyby The eLearning Guild, 525 College Avenue, Suite215, Santa Rosa, CA 95404. Phone: 707.566.8990.The eLearning Guild is an operating unit of FocuszoneMedia, Inc., 1030 Beatrice Street, Eagan, MN 55121.
The Journal is included as part of Guild membership.To join the Guild go to www.eLearningGuild.com.
Constructivism is a teaching method that suggests learning best occurs whenlearners reflect on their own experiences and construct their own distinct mean-ing, rules, and mental models related to the content. Not too many instructionaldesigners in the private sector are promoting constructivism, but some areemploying a bastardized version. Outside of outdoor adventure learning camps orother forms of woo-woo training (a technical term) we can’t really afford for learn-ers to come up with their own meaning and answers — there is generally one cor-rect way to do a job, and that’s what we expect employees to learn. However, weembrace a constructivist viewpoint in terms of empowering learners and makingtraining activities learner-centered. We believe that methods such as guided dis-covery, experimentation, and inquiry will lead to attainment of higher levels oflearning in all learning domains.
SIDEBAR: On Constructivism
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s4
FEB
RU
AR
Y 3
, 2
00
3 /
TH
E E
LE
AR
NIN
G D
EV
EL
OP
ER
S’
JOU
RN
AL
pants are engaged in a variety of activitiesin which they all contribute to the sharedlearning. The workshop objectives havemuch more to do with influencing attitudesand introducing concepts than they do withskill building. After the workshop, partici-pants are able to answer, at a basic level,these questions: What is a Great Busi-ness? How is a Great Business meas-ured? How do we build a Great Business?What does our effort to become a GreatBusiness mean for me?
An advanced e-Learning application. Tosupplement the workshop and address theskill requirements to solve the businessproblem described above, two e-Learningapplications were also designed. Initially, a very comprehensive application was con-ceived, designed, and tested — we’ll referto this as the “advanced” course becauseit’s advanced in terms of content. In theinstructional design process describedbelow, we’ll see how the applicationemploys guided discovery teaching meth-ods in an LO-based architecture.
A basic e-Learning application. Duringusability testing of the advanced course,individuals in the organization’s financecommunity suggested that a second appli-cation be developed to provide a morebasic treatment of financial concepts. Thissecond course, the “basic” course, usesinstructional games as the primary teach-
ing method. This course was the firstopportunity to attempt to reuse learningobjects developed for the advancedcourse.
The remainder of this article addressesthe design of the advanced course andhow its content was reused and repur-posed for the basic version.
Goals of advanced course
The business problem was identified asthe likely failure of the business to reachits financial targets unless employees aremaking the right decisions and doing theright things. Specifically, employees must:
1) Consistently make sound businessdecisions on the job to improve operatingreturn on assets.
2) Choose to take appropriate actions topositively impact SVA and ORoA.
3) Proactively seek to maximize SVA and ORoA by identifying and seizing oppor-tunities outside normal job duties. Thismeans zealously pursuing opportunities toimprove financial performance in the enter-prise and taking appropriate action to initi-ate and implement needed changes inbusiness processes, e.g.,
• Bringing ORoA improvement opportuni-ties to the attention of the appropriateprocess owner and finance staff.
• Lending assistance to ORoA improve-ment projects as appropriate.
These goals were analyzed to identifythe knowledge, skill, and attitude compo-nents required and a competency map wasdeveloped to represent these components.Figure 1 illustrates a condensed version ofthe competency map. Each block is actual-ly a terminal or enabling objective placedon the competency map to reflect its rela-tionship to other objectives in a hierarchyof knowledge and skills. This map is help-ful for chunking and sequencing instruc-tion, identifying prerequisite knowledge and skills, and for developing instructionalstrategies.
Target population and prerequisites for advanced course
The target population was identified andanalyzed, and two distinct groups were rec-ognized and addressed with the application.
• The primary audience is a group com-posed of readers of English who fallinto one (or both) of these groups: a) mid-level managers and above; b) all employees working in a profes-sional accounting or finance role.
• The secondary audience is the groupof all other employees who readEnglish and have ready access to the company intranet.
Prerequisites were identified for levels of literacy and numeracy, and tests wereadministered during course design anddevelopment to ensure that the contentaccommodated learners meeting theseprerequisites.
• For literacy — 8th-grade reading levelas measured by Fry’s ReadabilityIndex. (http://school.discovery.com/schrockguide/fry/fry.html)
• Level 4 (9th — 12th grade) numeracylevel in each of the nine MathematicsStandards found in the McREL K-12Standards.(http://www.mcrel.org/com-pendium/Standard.asp?SubjectID=1)
Instructional strategiesInstructional strategies, we believe, are
best determined after a comprehensiveanalysis of the content, the performancegoals, the target population, and the con-straints of the delivery system. Here arejust a few of the factors that entered intothe decision process for this course:
• The content is technical and requireshigh levels of numeracy
• Concepts to be taught will be appliedacross a wide range of job activities
• The target population is very hetero-
FIGURE 1 Competency map with a portion expanded.
geneous in terms of familiarity withcontent — some are near the level ofa subject matter expert while othersare complete novices
• Performance goals require initiativeand independent thinking
• e-Learning capabilities are in place,and management would like to see e-Learning used in this situation
• There will be numerous opportunitiesto reuse and repurpose portions ofthe content for other audiences
Design objectives
Given the factors above (and many oth-ers), a set of design objectives were creat-ed to guide the remainder of the instruc-tional design process. This Top Ten Listfunctioned as a somewhat fluid list ofspecs for the instructional designers.
1) Include guided discovery teachingmethods. A confident target population isa requisite for effective guided discovery.If the audience lacks confidence, designersmust build in a high degree of coachingand cues to compensate. In this case,guided discovery was fitting for the signifi-cant portion of the target population whowould be confident with the subject matterand the online learning environment.Guided discovery was also deemed appro-priate for this course given the need forperformers to show initiative and demon-strate independent thinking on the job. Itmade sense to reinforce those behaviorsin the course itself.
2) Include problem-based case teachingmethods. All instruction is simulation.When instruction closely mirrors perform-ance on the job, it’s considered high fideli-ty simulation. Most online instruction doesnot approximate what happens on the job,so it would be properly classified as lowfidelity simulation. Since the objectives inthis course, to a large extent, deal withanalyzing and solving business problems, it made sense to base a lot of the instruc-tion on solving problems, and those wereembedded in case studies to provide morecontext, and so more fidelity.
3) Include conventional, expositorypaths in the teaching methods. The targetpopulation is highly heterogeneous interms of familiarity with the content andfluency in navigating online learning (bothare big confidence issues). Limiting theinstruction to learner-directed methods, itwas determined, would pose a threat tomany learners. A more traditional, exposi-
tory and linear path was provided to sup-plement the problem-based, guided discov-ery portion of the course.
A note about the above methods: Ourrationale for selecting multiple methods isnot an attempt to meet various learningstyles (e.g., auditory learner, kinestheticlearner, etc.). We believe that methods are
best determined by the content, the per-formance, and the target population’sfamiliarity and confidence.
4) Include an option for test-out. Fewthings are more frustrating than to be forcedto wade through a sea of content that youhave already mastered, in order to reach thepost-test. Learners in this course must be
THE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JOU
RN
AL
/ FEB
RU
AR
Y 3, 2
00
3 5
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
FIGURE 2 Course map.
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
given an opportunity to test out at any time.5) Use pre-testing to create a cus-
tomized path through the content. Due tothe high degree of diversity in the audiencewith regard to subject matter knowledge,the ability to adapt content to individualneeds would be a huge selling point. Thiswas implemented by using a pre-test as adiagnostic and the capabilities of the learn-ing content management system (LCMS) toserve up a customized course based oncontent mapped to the course objectivesthat need work.
6) Provide alternate resources to serveas job aids after conclusion of the course.All the learning achieved in this coursewould be for naught if not applied on thejob. Creating useful job aids and embed-ding them in the instruction would increasethe fidelity of the training experience andalso improve transfer to the job. Embeddedjob aids were seen as essential ingredi-ents of the course.
7) Select an appropriate “world con-text” to frame the general story line con-taining the cases. We needed to create acontext for the content that would bemeaningful to all learners. A café wasselected as a business that all learnerscould identify with and that would provide ameaningful way to present business prob-lems that would transfer to learners’ jobs.
8) Provide role-specific job contexts inaddition to a “world context.” The worldcontext provided by the café was a good
place to start to introduce content andproblems, but we knew the effectivenessof the instruction would be improved if wecould reduce the amount of transfer learn-ers would have to do to. We created aseries of role-specific case studies thatwould increase the job context of theinstruction provided in the café scenario.The pre-test used for diagnostics wasdesigned to map the role of the learner toone of the following functional roles in theorganization:
• Manufacturing• Finance/accounting• Marketing• Engineering• Human resources• Supply management• Information systems• Product support9) Provide optional background informa-
tion for those wanting greater richness inthe world context. This design goal wasbased more on intuition than analysis orresearch, but we felt we should provideoptional contextual information for thoselearners who wanted greater richness inthe café storyline.
10) Base the course architecture onlearning objects. We authored the applica-tion using the capabilities of LogicBuilder,an LCMS product from LogicBay Corpor-ation. The details and technical underpin-nings of the architecture will be addressedin the follow-up article.
Course elements and organization
Figure 2 on page 5 provides a graphicalrepresentation of major course elements.Each block in the figure represents aseries of screens of instructional contentor supporting materials. In the next articlein this series, we’ll explain how theseblocks function as objects and more abouttheir particular attributes. For now, youcan consider each block to be a series ofscreens that are randomly accessed fromthe navigation tree built into the interface.
Orientation information
The first series of blocks across the topof Figure 2 represents optional orientationinformation. It is likely that most or all ofthis information will be viewed the firsttime a learner enters the course, but notnecessarily so. The introduction provides amessage from the chairman of the compa-ny and information intended to motivatelearners and answer initial questions.
Pre-test
Immediately below the introductory infor-mation is a block representing the pre-test.This test is optional but is useful for all levels of learners. For novice learners, itprovides cues about pending instruction.Advanced learners especially benefit fromthe pre-test because it diagnoses masteryof learning objectives and then providesdata to an engine that dynamically createsan optional path customized to addressthe individual learner’s needs. The pre-test is composed of items drawn from alarge pool, an aggregate of smaller poolsthat are each mapped to a learning objec-tive. The result is that each test occur-rence is a distinctive set of 50+ test itemsthat cover all learning objectives.
Lessons in the main story line
You’ll notice on the course map thatthere is a central line of objects extendinglike a spine down from the pre-test. Thisis the main story line, and it is composedof five lessons. The content is framed inproblems presented in a story about a ladywho starts a business, Maddie’s Café. Asthe course opens, Maddie makes the deci-sion to start her business. She gets capi-tal and must make decisions about how toemploy her capital based on its cost andher business needs. Learners are present-ed with the scenario and with the problemsfaced by Maddie as she runs her business.No explanatory content is provided prior to
6FE
BR
UA
RY
3,
20
03
/ T
HE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JO
UR
NA
L
FIGURE 3 Screen shot of an ORoA improvment task.
THE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JOU
RN
AL
/ FEB
RU
AR
Y 3, 2
00
3 7
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
presentation of the story but learners, aswe’ll see, do receive cues and links to avariety of resources.
Figure 3 is a screen shot of typical les-son content. In this screen, the learner isasked to investigate the feasibility of abusiness decision. This problem is notpreceded by instruction on how to solvethis problem — the learner must figure outhow to solve it with resources provided.The learner who lacks confidence or triesunsuccessfully can opt to follow the link toTutorial 11 for a bite-sized chunk of exposi-tory instruction on calculating ORoA.
The five lessons provide a path for self-directed learners to engage in guided dis-covery. The rest of the instructional andperformance support components that aredescribed below are all available from anyscreen in any lesson.
Expository tutorials
Referring again to Figure 2 on page 5,notice the column of objects along the left-hand side of the course map. These learn-ing objects are short (five to 20 minutes)units of instruction. We called them tutori-als, just to distinguish them from the les-sons that make up the main storyline.There are major differences, though,between these objects. Whereas the les-sons are problem-based story capsulesthat let learners wrestle with content andexplore resources, the tutorials are typical(linear, rigid, expository) online instruction-al elements.
You can think of these tutorials as dish-es arrayed along a large buffet table.Learners may select any item in any order— whatever is needed to enable them tomaster the objectives. These tutorial com-ponents are where course customizationoccurs. When a learner completes the pre-test, assuming some objectives are mas-tered, an alternate menu is available thatshows only those tutorials that are ger-mane to the individual. Of course, themenu containing the full list of tutorials canbe selected as well, so even the expertlearner can access basic lessons if desired.
Role-specific case studies
Notice that there are blocks connected to the right of four of the lessons in thecourse map to represent role-specific casestudies. When a learner selects this optionat the conclusion of a lesson, a short casestudy is presented to illustrate the teachingpoints of the related lesson. An engineer
will see the teaching points within an engi-neering context; the HR manager will seethe same teaching points addressed in anHR case. These case studies increase thefidelity of the instruction; they are enor-mously useful for reducing the amount oftransfer the learner must do to apply theknowledge and skills on the job.
Job aids
In the lower right corner of the coursemap there are a series of blocks represent-ing calculator functions. In the finaldesign, separate calculators for each keyfinancial calculation were designedinto one multifunction calculatordepicted in Figure 4. The calculatorhas a general math calculator func-tion as well as a built-in notepad.The job aid is designed to be acces-sible on the job and used for jobfunctions in the same way it’s usedto solve problems in the course.
Background information
Blocks in the upper right corner ofthe course map represent back-ground information. Some itemsserve as supporting course materialthat is essential to solve courseproblems (e.g., Maddie’s Café bal-ance sheet) and other items arepurely to provide additional richnessto the context of the Maddie’s Caféstoryline (See Figure 5 showingMaddie’s biographical information).
Background information includes:• Biographical information on Maddie,
the main character in the storyline• Information on Maddie’s community
and customers• Information about the Café setting and
the menu• Background of Maddie’s investor and
banker• Biographical information on Maddie’s
two employees• Information on suppliers to the café• Balance sheet• Income statement
FIGURE 4 Multi-function calculator showing theCost of Assets calculator.
FIGURE 5 Biographical information on Maddie, the main character in the story line.
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
• Costs and pricing information• Glossary of terms
Reusability strategiesWe developed our reusability strategy
at the outset of the instructional designprocess for the first course, the compre-hensive course that is mapped in Figure 2on page 5. Given the design goals pre-sented earlier, we knew we faced a consid-erable challenge because we were planningon making the content rich in context.Context is the darling of instructional effec-tiveness but the bane of reusability.Remember this: regarding reusability, allcontext is contamination. We knew thisand designed to mitigate the effects ofcontext contamination — more about thislater. What we didn’t foresee is that cer-tain content items and information objectswould be needed when we had an opportu-nity for reuse.
Learning object overview
We use the term learning object as anumbrella label to refer to the elementsdescribed below. We’ll provide detailedinformation on the technical aspects ofLOs in the next article in this series. For now, here is an overview of learning objects as applied in our case study.(Author’s aside: We credit Chuck Barritt of Cisco Systems and Wayne Hodgins ofAutoDesk for shaping our thinking aboutlearning objects. They bear no responsibili-ty, however, for our attempts to interpretand apply their ideas.) Content items arethe most granular of the learning objects.We define a content item as an independ-ent information asset that adds value toinstruction, a performance support applica-tion, or other communication. Examples ofa content item include a block of text, anillustration, and a video clip. Contentitems, though self-contained objects, aregenerally not intended to stand alone forconsumption by the end user; they areintended to be served up in combinationsof two or more.
When content items are combined tocreate a stand-alone element of informa-tion ready to be served up to the end user,this is called a reusable information object(RIO). RIOs do not need to have an instru-ctional intent (in fact, they generally donot). Consider Figures 4 and 5 on page 7.These are RIOs composed of contentitems, e.g., text, graphics, etc. They are8
FEB
RU
AR
Y 3
, 2
00
3 /
TH
E E
LE
AR
NIN
G D
EV
EL
OP
ER
S’
JOU
RN
AL
This publication is by the people, for the people.That means it’s written by YOU the readers and members of The eLearning Guild!
We encourage you to submit articles for publication in the Journal.
Even if you have not been published before, we encourage you to submit a query
if you have a great idea, technique, case study or practice to share with your peers
in the e-Learning community. If your topic idea for an article is selected by the edi-
tors, you will be asked to submit a complete article on that topic. Don’t worry if you
have limited experience writing for publication. Our team of editors will work with
you to polish your article and get it ready for publication in the Journal.
By sharing your expertise with the readers of the Journal, you not only add to the
collective knowledge of the e-Learning community, you also gain the recognition of
your peers in the industry and your organization.
How to Submit a Query
If you have an idea for an article, send a plain-text email to our editor, Bill Brandon,
at [email protected], with the following information in the body of the email:
• A draft of the first paragraph, written to grab the reader’s attention and identify
the problem or issue that will be addressed.
• A short outline of your main points addressing the problem or resolving the
issue. This could be another paragraph or it could be a bulleted list.
• One paragraph on your background or current position that makes you the one
to tell this story.
• A working title for the article.
• Your contact information: name, job title, company, phone, email. This informa-
tion is to be for the writer of the article. We are unable to accept queries from
agents, public relations firms, or other third parties.
All of this information should fit on one page. If the topic fits our editorial plan, Bill
will contact you to schedule the manuscript deadline and the publication date, and
to work out any other details.
Refer to www.eLearningGuild.com for more details.
Get It Published in...
Do you have an interesting story to tell?
THE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JOU
RN
AL
/ FEB
RU
AR
Y 3, 2
00
3 9
DEVELOPMENT / t e c h n i q u e s
part of an instructional application, butwhen they stand alone do not serve anidentifiable learning objective.
If you combine several RIOs with prac-tice and assessment items to address aspecific learning objective, you create areusable learning object (RLO). In our caseexample, the combination of Figures 4 and5 with Figure 3 (and the rest of the ele-ments in that particular lesson) constitutean RLO. Also by way of example, each ofthe tutorials (left-hand side of the coursemap) is an RLO. They each address spe-cific learning objectives and are composedof a variety of RIOs.
Reusability — it’s all about granularity
Granularity is the paradox of reusability.The more granular the object, the morelikely it is that the object is free from con-text and can find its way to be reused inalternate applications. However, as granu-larity increases, the problems of contentmanagement are compounded becausethere are simply more objects to tag,store, and later retrieve.
Think about your content repository as a sandbox. If all your LOs are individualgrains of sand (simple content items), youhave ultimate flexibility and reusability butthe least efficiency. If, on the other hand,you have some pre-formed shapes (RIOsand RLOs), you can build your sand castlesmore rapidly and economically.
No, it’s all about context
We’ll learn in the next article in thisseries that there are LCMS capabilitiesthat can simplify tagging and retrievalissues and thus mitigate some of the gran-ularity concerns, but not all of them. Asyou assemble content items and RIOs toaddress learning objectives, you’re almostobligated to incorporate context to makethe content meaningful for your target pop-ulation. What’s meaningful for one popula-tion segment, though, is nonsense toanother, and that’s why we can say that allcontext is contamination when it comes toreusability. RLOs, the least granular of theobjects we’ve discussed, are most difficultto reuse because they, of necessity, con-tain contextual elements, practice, andassessment components — all ingredientsthat severely limit reusability.
Our reusability strategy
Our strategy for achieving reusability con-sisted of creating two distinct paths, only
one of which included RLOs that wereintended for reuse:
1) The guided discovery path. This isthe path down through the center of thecourse map and the five lessons aboutMaddie’s Café. No reuse of the RLOs, thelessons, was anticipated. However, thereare many supporting RIOs, e.g., the calcu-lator and financial statements, that weanticipated would be reused. These RIOswere optional elements, the discoveredelements of the content that added rich-ness of context and enhanced the learningexperience. None of these RIOs, however,addressed a specific learning objective.Characteristics of the guided discoverypath include:
• There is richness in the world context(supporting information about Maddie’sCafé) and in the role-specific context(case studies for functional workroles).
• No expository methods are used. Allinstruction consists of problem-basedcases with embedded cues to support-ing resources. The expectation is thatlearners will explore and constructtheir own learning path in order tosolve the problems.
2) The expository path. This is the pathdown through the 16 tutorials along theleft-hand side of the course map. Each
tutorial is an RLO with content, practice,and assessment elements, and eachaddresses a specific learning objective(s).These objects were designed with reuse inmind. Characteristics of the expositorypath include:
• The instruction is generic, as void ofcontext as is practical.
• The teaching method follows a linear,behavioral style — provide stimulus(content), elicit performance (knowl-edge check), provide feedback, andrepeat.
• Graphical components, including ani-mation, are used to provide visualinterest.
In other words, the expository path ispretty much standard fare for onlineinstruction — boring but efficient and, ifthe learner is motivated, effective to atleast some extent.
What worked... and didn’tIt’s too early to report reliable and com-
prehensive results of the impact of theinstruction, but we conducted extensiveusability testing and can report some pre-liminary findings:
• The guided discovery path is engagingand holds learner interest.
• Nearly all learners perceive the role-specific context as valuable.
• Only a small percentage of learnersspend much time exploring the option-al background information about thecafé (the world context), but those whodo express a lot of appreciation forthe character development, etc.
• There are no predictable pathsthrough the course map. Some learn-ers jump out of the lessons (guideddiscovery path) at every opportunity togo through every tutorial. Some learn-ers skip the guided discovery pathaltogether and focus on the tutorials,but most do spend extensive time inthe guided discovery portion.
Now, about the reusability issue... . Wehad created tutorial summaries to providea simplified overview of the content ofgroups of the expository tutorials. Forinstance, the first five tutorials deal withassets and form a natural grouping, so wecreated a summary called Assets at aGlance. When asked to create a basic ver-sion of this entire course, it made sense toreuse those summaries — the content waswhat we wanted. However, we’d designedthe summaries almost as an afterthought
Context is the darling of instructional effective-
ness but the bane of
reusability. Remember
this: regarding reusability,
all context is contami-
nation. What we didn’t
foresee is that certain
content items and infor-
mation objects would be
needed when we had an
opportunity for reuse.
following creating of all the tutorials. As we creat-ed those objects, we failed to see the potential forreuse, and included wording that referred to por-tions of the extant course (dreaded context).Bottom line: we had to repurpose (rewrite) thosetutorial summaries in order to use them in thebasic course. If there’s a lesson to be learnedhere, it’s that opportunities for reuse spring fromunexpected opportunities. Always consider thecontext issue as you create content items.
More to comeOur experiences have shaped our thinking about
LOs, and we’ll share more in the next installment.Our focus will be on the technical details of LOs,the operation of an LCMS, and our thoughts aboutthe future structure and application of learningobjects. Editor’s note: Part 2 of this series willappear next week. Peder Jacobsen will discuss the technical details of the project.
AUTHOR CONTACTKim E. Ruyle is Manager of Learning and
Development Processes and Technology in Deere& Company’s Global Learning and Developmentgroup. There he leads an instructional designgroup responsible for enterprise applications. Kimhas a rare blend of hands-on work experience andextensive academic credentials. He started hiscareer in the skilled trades, was a university pro-fessor, and ran his own business. His graduatedegrees in instructional technology, business, andvocational education include an MS, MEd, MBA,and a PhD. Kim serves on several expert panelsfor learning technologies and is a frequent confer-ence presenter and author. Contact Kim by emailat [email protected]
ONLINE DISCUSSIONSExtend your learning beyond the printed page!
If you are looking for more information on thistopic, if you have questions about an article, or if you disagree with a viewpoint stated in this arti-cle, then join the online discussions and extendyour learning.
Follow these easy steps to participate:
1. Go to www.eLearningGuild.com and sign in.2. Click on the Online Discussion button on the
main menu.3. Using the pull down menu, select the Online
Discussion: Journal Topics4. Select this article from the Subject list.5. Click on ADD A NEW MESSAGE.6. Enter your message. It will be posted as soon
as you hit the Submit button on the form.
Additional information on the topics covered inthis article is also listed in the Guild Resourcedirectory.
10FE
BR
UA
RY
3,
20
03
/ T
HE
EL
EA
RN
ING
DE
VE
LO
PE
RS
’ JO
UR
NA
L
The eLearning Guild™ isa Community of Practicefor designers, developers,and managers of e-Learn-
ing. Through this member-driven community,we provide high-quality learning opportunities,networking services, resources, and publica-tions. Community members represent a diversegroup of instructional designers, content devel-opers, web developers, project managers, con-tractors, consultants, and managers and direc-tors of training and learning services — all ofwhom share a common interest in e-Learningdesign, development, and management.
The eLearning Developers’ Journal™
The Guild publishes the only online “e-Journal”in the e-Learning industry that is focused ondelivering real world “how to make it happen inyour organization” information. The Journal ispublished weekly and features articles writtenby both industry experts and members whowork every day in environments just like yours.As an active member, you will have unlimitedaccess to the Journal archive.
People Connecting With People
The Guild provides a variety of online membernetworking tools including online discussionboards, and the Needs & Leads™ bulletinboard. These services enable members to discuss topics of importance, to ask others tohelp them find information they need, and toprovide leads to other members.
Resources, Resources, Resources
The Guild hosts the e-Learning industries mostcomprehensive resource knowledge database.Currently there are over 2,300 resources avail-able. Members have access to all of theseresources and they can also post resources at any time!
Guild Research
The Guild has an ongoing industry researchservice that conducts surveys on 20 topicseach year. These topics are identified by theResearch Advisory Committee. The data collect-ed is available for all members.
It’s About Leadership
The Guild draws leadership from an amazingAdvisory Board made up of individuals who pro-vide insight and guidance to help ensure thatthe Guild serves its constituency well. We arehonored to have their active engagement andparticipation. The Guild has also establishedthree committees made up of active memberswho help steer its editorial, events program andresearch efforts.
Discounts, Discounts, Discounts
Guild members receive discounts on all Guildconferences and on other selected productsand services. Your Guild membership will saveyou 20% off the list price of Guild events!
Join today at www.eLearningGuild.com!
Become a member today! Join online at www.eLearningGuild.com.
THANK YOU TO THESE GUILD ENTERPRISE SPONSORS
To learn how to become a Guild Enterprise Sponsor, please contact David Holcombeat [email protected] or call 707.566.8990.
Spectra InteractiveLearning is a unique,full service, e-Learn-ing consulting com-
pany — growing and expanding in NorthAmerica and Europe to meet the grow-ing need for expertise in e-Learningstrategy development, instructionaldesign and program implementation.www.spectrainteractive.comContact: Brenda Pfaus, [email protected], Canada (613) 230-9978
Cyclone Intera-ctive is an inter-active media and
web development firm creating online, CD and presentation solutions for a wide range of clients and industries. www.cycloneinteractive.com Contact: Earl [email protected]
CLARK Training &Consulting (CTC) is a glob-al leader in instructional
design offering both training and con-sulting services. Our award-winningseminars are based on the latestresearch in instructional psychologyand human performance improvement. www.clarktraining.comContact: Kimberly Perkins602-230-9190
About the Guild
Because the mostdramatic learning happens through
first-hand experience, everything we do is focused on creating experiences —engaging, challenging and yes, fun, expe-riences — that people will take back towork and use every day to improve theirperformances....www.alleninteractions.com Contact: Jackie [email protected]
