eLearning Object Review #2: Linear vs Branching Scenario e-learning

Reflecting on my past work, I realize that almost everything I have developed that called itself "branching" was not true branching. At most, we would create what I now know as parallel content which shares a common prerequisite that then divides users at a decision point, each leading to different content. Currently, we are building a module to test compliance understanding that asks users to select their area of occupation: clinical, academic, or corporate. We then lead learners through a series of "scenarios" based on the context of their area. I use the word scenario in quotes there to signify that they are not true scenarios where learners have different decisions that can lead to different content. They are descriptions of situations that ask learners "What would you do?" Learners are presented with two choices, one right and one wrong. Whichever they choose leads to the same feedback for both. The paths converge towards the end to continue delivering the same content regardless of previous choices.

Parallel Content

Example of linear and parallel content used in compliance training

The opportunity to use true scenario-based eLearning is not lost on me. According to Cathy Moore (n. d.), branching scenarios can help learners practice skills such as: challenging their own assumptions; recovering from mistakes in a long complex process; navigating extended and ambiguous situations; deciding when to stop gathering information and act. Practicing how to stay compliant to a corporation's ethics standards and when to act fully lends itself to a scenario-based eLearning to support these goals.

My favorite example of a true scenario-based eLearning is the Haji Kamal module. This was the first time I saw what scenario-based eLearning could truly be. Not only does the existence of realistic options pull learners into the world, but experiencing consequences allows users to learn from their choices. Truly an exemplary example.

---

This week, I reviewed Conversations that Work!

This module is an example of a branching scenario because the learner has the potential to view different content to make a path to the end. There are dozens of ways to navigate through this course by giving different answers to the posed questions. Branching scenarios are ideal for this learning module because the learner is honing a skill that is applicable to ambiguous situations. It is more like real life than a straightforward linear object would be because it allows you to answer incorrectly, try and do better, maybe correct your actions, and overall succeed or fail. I specifically appreciated the access to the STATE Resource to give some guidance to the learner as they move along. The module directs learners to this specific button so they can access the resource when they need it.

Conversations that Work is suitable for use by learners on computers ideally. and mobile devices. I suggest computer because the graphics and text weren’t responsive or scaleable and learners could potentially spend a long time working through the scenarios. Mobile delivery is ideal for small chinks of information spanning 3-7 minutes, meaning this scenario would have to be shortened significantly (Giacumo, 2022). The gestures utilized by the module are only click-based so a user could navigate through it via mobile if they were in a pinch. I discuss more about computer versus mobile design here.

References

Giacumo, L. A. Week 4 Lecture Notes.

Moore, C. (2013, July 7). 4 reasons to use branching scenarios in training. Training Design - Cathy Moore. https://blog.cathy-moore.com/2013/07/when-do-you-need-a-branching-scenario/

eLearning Object Review #1

I have the opportunity in this post to review Blue Beta Facilities Orientation.

In this post, I will be identifying:

1. the course topic

2. the relevant characteristics of the target learner audience (what can you infer?)

3. the knowledge and/or skill type(s)

4. the learning domain(s),

5. the assessment method(s) (i.e., response options, test items),

6. the trigger event(s) (how do you get the learner to act?)

7. the guidance technique(s) (how does the learner know what to do next?)

8. the advisor type(s) (if any)

This course is an example of a linear hierarchical (directive) e-learning object.

• Linear: Information is organized into chunks that naturally build on one another. The learner is limited by the interface to only view the information in a specific order, one topic at a time.

• Hierarchical (directive): Similar to a textbook’s design, an eLearning course can have several lessons, each with several topics which can be presented with multimedia such as text, images, animation, audio, and video clips (Chyung, 2007, p.3). A directive approach is ideal for workers with new jobs because it offers small chunks of knowledge at a time, and allows learners to observe and listen while periodically responding to questions (Clark, 2013).

The (1) topic of the course is the office facilities and providing any information employees will need to know to work in the facilities both in the present and future. The (2) audience, a company new hire, has no prior knowledge of office layout of rules. They are considered novice learners with high motivation, as they are eager to start their first day. We assume they are familiar with the technology on which the training is being delivered. Orienting activities are usually done at the learner’s pace, so there are no time constraints on this eLearning object. (Of the learning characteristics to consider when developing an eLearning object, age, gender, cultural background, prior education, and prior work experience are not relevant.)

There are three categories of eLearning content: declarative, procedural, and situated. This eLearning example falls under the declarative (4) knowledge domain because it is concerned with “knowing what.” Specifying the topic’s learning category and the level of learning helps developers determine the most appropriate methods and media to deliver the content (p. 4). The (3) content-type is concepts and facts that will be useful to the learner in the future.

The (6) triggering event should be realistic and compelling (Clark, 2013, p.64). In this course, the triggering event occurs on the first page of the eLearning, Here, it provides a quick overview of “why learn this information” and gives them a clear idea of what the expected outcome is so that the learner is prepared (p. 64). The module asks the learner to interact by clicking “Start Course” to view the next topic.

Clark identifies nine types of guidance techniques: faded support, simple to complex scenarios, open vs. close response options, navigation options, training wheels, coaching advisors, worksheets, feedback, or collaboration (p. 77). Articulate Rise uses fairly intuitive navigation options as a (7) guidance technique. As the learner reads from top to bottom, they reach a barrier that asks them to click to continue. This is the typical way an audience interacts with a webpage, both in scrolling and clicking through menus. Because the training is being delivered in this manner, it is important to know the learner’s ability to use the technology. Rise also employs signaling (via animations and hover states) to indicate where the learner should click.

This eLearning object requires a test with multiple-choice and yes/no questions to give immediate corrective feedback during its (5) assessment.

In eLearning, an (8) advisor can appear to provide context-specific guidance or direction at the moment of need (Chyung, 2013, p. 82). Because of Articulate Rise’s simplistic interface, there is no included option for an advisor to appear. A designer could include directions to learners about what to do next, but that would appear alongside the rest of the content as the user scrolls through the lessons.

References

Chyung, S. Y. (2007). Learning Object-Based e-Learning: Content Design, Methods, and Tools. The eLearning Guild’s Learning Solutions. https://www.learningguild.com/pdf/2/082707des-temp.pdf

Clark, R. C. (2013). Scenario-based e-learning: Evidence-based guidelines for online workforce learning. (Links to an external site.) San Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.

Going beyond ADDIE: My introduction to LeaPS

My first job in eLearning revolved around the ADDIE (Analysis, Design, Development, Implementation, and Evaluation) model. At this job, we built custom training for pharmaceutical sales reps. Being on the development side of these training modules, I worked with instructional designers to create assets based on their storyboards. At the time, this was the only exposure I had to IDs and (embarrassingly) thought instructional design was synonymous with designing eLearning modules. After all, the company’s purpose was to develop eLearning training, and it achieved that purpose very well.

A version of the ADDIE model approach to training used by my current organization.

This brings me back to ADDIE. In that environment, ADDIE (at least how we used it) served us very well. A client would come to us with a training request, my team would ask a few questions (the Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How?), we would design a storyboard, develop the training, send it off to the client, and update as necessary based on the client’s feedback and the learners’ reception. Simple, right? …and that was the extent of my relationship to ADDIE.

I think the beauty of ADDIE lies in its simplicity. You can explain it easily to clients. It can be used as a linear step-by-step. When I was onboarding at that job, a one-page pdf document was all I needed to learn the model. Looking back, I can recognize that my experience in an ADDIE-driven environment, while maybe not unique, was certainly not all that it could be. I don’t think I ever appreciated what ADDIE was capable of.

As I would come to learn, ADDIE is not a single model in and of itself, but a family of models with a common structure. It makes sense then that without embracing a more customized and detailed version of an ADDIE model, we did not understand how our deliverables could benefit from the process. After all, looking at the general ADDIE model gives users no indication of what to focus on, what questions to ask, what data points to collect, what deliverables each step should yield, how those deliverables add to the process…while it’s a nice model to reference, it does little to inspire action. No wonder I didn’t appreciate the power of models when I entered my master’s program.

During my OPWL master’s program, I was shocked and overwhelmed by how many models existed to help HPT practitioners accomplish their goals. I had always considered models to be a pretty summary or a way of presenting information rather than a systematic process to be followed. Suddenly I was inundated with dozens of models at my disposal, to help me work through issues. I’m lucky that I built a better relationship with models before I was introduced to OPWL’s very own LeaPS ID model.

LeaPS ID Model, introduced by the OPWL Masters Program at Boise State

Through the mastery of a group of professors at Boise State and their willingness to share their expertise, the LeaPS ID model offers a new approach to instructional design. Building upon and adding to many proven instructional design models, LeaPS gives more detail, insight, direction, and suggestions to beginner instructional designers. Admittedly the model is overwhelming at first glance. The graphic designer in me wants to take a stab at making the information more digestible and fluid (maybe a future post?). But the usefulness of the model itself is undeniable. I already have ideas about its application to my current organization and what it could mean for the future of our deliverables.

If you’re curious, check out the YouTube videos below for more information on the LeaPS ID Model:

---

What’s next:

• How my current organization could benefit from the LeaPS approach