Over the course of the semester, we have been designing and developing our own original eLearning objects. The objects are scenario-based and allow learners to work through multiple branches based on their decisions to arrive at different outcomes. I decided to create a scenario in which an employee is asked to interview a candidate to decide their eligibility for a position using behavioral interview techniques. Scenario-based eLearning was the perfect opportunity to run a simulation of what an interview could look like while preserving a risk-free and safe environment in which to learn from your mistakes.

There are eight learning domains within workplace training: interpersonal skills; compliance; diagnosis and repair; research, analysis, and rationale; tradeoffs; operational decisions and actions; design; and team coordination (Clark, 2013, p. 23). This object falls within the learning domains of

Interpersonal skills: the learner needs to communicate effectively with the candidate to achieve the desired outcome
Research, Analysis, Rationale: the learner is required to make a recommendation about the candidate’s eligibility based on the information learned during the interview
Team coordination: the learner must to communicate effectively with the interviewing team to achieve the desired outcome

Introducing: Wait for the Great!

Screenshot of the first decision in Wait for the Great! eLearning

We were asked to develop a high-level design document and a storyboard that describes at least a few of the paths and outcomes that a learner could encounter.

Click here to preview the design document.

Screenshot of high-level design document.

Click here to preview the storyboard

Here, I expand on 3 evidence-based principles and describe how they are applied in this object:

Workplace trigger event: A critical component of scenario-based eLearning is setting up a trigger event. This is the event that the learner will encounter in the workplace that demands the application of the knowledge previously learned. Not only does it create a need for the learner, but it also sets a realistic stage for the learner and gives them the context they need to address the demand. In this object, a learner is asked to be the interviewer for a candidate and use behavioral interviewing to make a recommendation about the candidate. Within the object, the learner is provided resources such as a guide to behavioral interviewing and the candidate’s resume to help build out the context of the situation and give them everything they need to prepare.
Closed response options: At each decision point, the learner is able to select one question to ask the candidate. While this does not emulate how a real-life conversation would work, it does emulate how an interviewer would prepare questions beforehand. Closed response options also limit the object’s complexity, and therefore manage cognitive load. And while the multiple-choice options don’t always reflect the breadth of the conversation that could take place during an interview, it provides a good demonstration of a basic conversation within a defined environment.
Intrinsic and instructional feedback: Learners will receive immediate intrinsic feedback (changes in physical reaction) from the candidate as they progress and immediate and delayed instructional feedback both after each decision and at the conclusion of the scenario. In a real-life conversation, a learner would respond to their counterpart’s physical as well as verbal communication. Building in intrinsic feedback was an important feature to build into this object as the learner will be able to gauge their progress in part by the candidate’s physical response. The learner is also given instructional feedback as they progress and at the conclusion of the scenario. This is an attempt to correct the learner as they move through the object and provide scaffolding if they are in need. Clark (2013) mentions that “incorrect responses, if not immediately corrected, can embed the wrong knowledge and skills in memory,” (p. 104). The prior experience of the learners varies, so providing more specific feedback when the learner selects the “OK” or “Bad” options compensates for a learner’s lack of experience or prior knowledge.

As much as I tried to stay true to Tim Slade’s 5-step Storyboarding Process, I ended up adapting the process based on my previous experience and my strengths:

My Ah-Ha! moment: Unsurprisingly, my favorite part of planning the eLearning was working with the flowchart. Because this is a conversation, it can go in many directions and I wanted it to be as organic as possible. Working with LucidChart allowed me to be very flexible with my planning of the learner paths. Doing most of my planning within the flowchart allowed me to keep the project within scope (not include too many tangents) and re-use screens and responses easily.
My Oh No! moment: I decided on this topic because it was one that I had previously built training on. And having sat through multiple behavioral interviews, I felt comfortable crafting a realistic conversation. This ended up being much more difficult than I anticipated. I had a stock of questions in mind but had trouble coming up with realistic candidate responses. I also narrowed down the conversation a bit to keep the project in scope. In reality, there are many directions the conversation could go in based on candidate responses that include more nuances than a 40-screen eLearning object could capture.
Areas for improvement: The goal of this scenario-based eLearning object is to allow learners to practice behavioral interviewing in a low-risk setting. If I were to redesign this object, I would want to make it more similar to a realistic setting in which they would apply this knowledge. This involves using audio for the candidate responses (and allowing the learner to replay and/or review the transcript) and video to capture more realistic responses and non-verbal communications.

I really enjoyed creating this original eLearning object and having the chance to share it. Feel free to leave comments or suggestions!