A hush fell over the auditorium when the question was asked. The distinguished panel of learning and performance experts sitting on the dais also seemed momentarily stunned into silence, uncertain how to respond. The conference-goers waited attentively, because it was a question on so many minds, yet few would have had the courage to ask it in a room full of e-Learning professionals. The training manager repeated the question, “Why are so many Web-based training courses poorly designed?” That moment of silence and hesitation spoke volumes to me about this 500-pound gorilla standing by the water cooler, as it were.
ASTD’s 2005 State of the Industry Report, by Brenda
Sugrue and Ray Rivera, projected that the percentage of learning hours
delivered via self-paced, Web-based training (i.e., courseware) would rise to
18.3% in 2005, up from 16.3% in 2004 and 9.8% in 2003. While increasingly
popular among training managers, courseware may be less popular among learners.
An early study, done in 2001 by Karen Frankola, reported that 20% to 50% of
corporate learners do not complete their online courses, while Jeanne Meister
in 2002 put the dropout rate at 70%. A
So why should we find these figures alarming? Some have argued that if online learners are not finishing their courses, then perhaps it is because they are leaving their courses after getting what they needed to know, something that social pressure prevents them from doing in a classroom setting. I have even heard e-Learning vendors spin this sort of thinking into a benefit of courseware. There is no evidence, however, to support the notion that this is indeed why so many more e-Learners drop out of courses. Even if it were true, the research tells us that most learners do not know what they don’t know, and that most learners are not very good at selecting what they need to know.
So why do e-Learners really drop out? The Masie study found that the two biggest factors in determining whether a learner dropped out or completed a course related to the learner’s motivation (73%) and to the course’s design (40%). So what can we as instructional designers do to reduce dropout rates? My work frequently puts me in the role of quality assurance reviewer for courseware designed by my firm, by my clients, and by other firms who seek my input. In that role, I have seen too many courses designed with little, if any, concern for whether the course and its content are relevant to the learner’s work context, performance needs, and knowledge and skill gaps. If learners perceive that they need to improve in a particular skill area and perceive that the course can help them do so, then they are more likely to be motivated to take and to complete the course, assuming the course delivers on its promise. In other words, courses need to be worthy of completion, and it seems to me that, too often, they are not worthy.
Characteristics of a worthy course
So how do we design courses that are worthy of the learner’s time and effort? In my 15+ years of experience in the realms of learning, performance, and coaching, I’ve found that the most worthy courses have three key characteristics: they are relevant, meaningful, and engaging (see my article, “Understanding ADDIE: A Foundation for Designing Instruction,” listed in the References). Let’s consider these three qualities in more detail.
Worthy courses are relevant
When relevance is top of mind, designers include only knowledge and skills that directly contribute to the learner’s ability to perform more effectively on the job (at least in the context of workplace learning). They either subordinate or eliminate all other information. Designers avoid including abstract information; rather, they present information in the context of how it applies to an authentic job task or activity that the learner performs. For example, with product knowledge training for salespeople, you could present the learner with a litany of product features and benefits. Or, instead, you could demonstrate how the learner would present those features and benefits to clients during real-life sales situations. While the former is a de-contextualized strategy for designing training, the latter represents a contextualized strategy.
Let’s consider another example. In Figure 1 you will notice that the designer is introducing a performance analysis model. Rather than simply describing the various elements of the model, the designer describes the model in terms of a process, a progression of questions that the learner should ask him or herself when faced with a performance problem. The remaining screens in this module describe the various steps of the model by taking the learner through a realistic scenario introduced earlier. Even with a somewhat academic and conceptual model like this one, it is possible for the designer to present it in a contextualized, performance-oriented manner.
Figure 1 Present information in the context of the job or activity the learner performs.
Worthy courses are meaningful
Too often, I see course content so poorly written that only its SME could love it. This may be partly due to the limitations of the designer’s writing abilities. However, another reason is that designers often take the SME’s words too literally without distilling their meaning and communicating that meaning effectively in their own words. I often find myself asking designers, “What meaning are you intending to convey?”
At the same time, many so-called “multimedia” courses squander learning opportunities by using graphics that convey no substantial meaning. Ironically, multimedia designers often focus so much on communicating through words that they pay little attention to graphic organizers, animations, and other visual forms of communication. (Editor’s Note: A “graphic organizer” is pictorial material intended to help a learner understand a concept, process, procedure, or principle, to clarify the structure of lesson content, or to communicate qualitative relationships. Topic maps are an example of one kind of graphic organizer.) Consider the screen in Figure 2. The screen relates to product specifications for e-Learning courses, yet the graphic is simply a stylized image of several LCD monitors. Does the graphic help the designer convey any meaning?
Figure 2 The graphic on this course screen fails to convey any meaning related to the content.
Now, consider a different example. In Figure 3 the screen asks the learner to consider whether the two hypotheses will ever agree. Can you see how the graphic engages the reader and enhances the message by the inter-play of meaningful text and meaningful graphic? This is at the heart of what can make multi-media so effective, when designed properly.
Figure 3 The message on this screen is enhanced by the interplay between the graphics used and the text.
Worthy courses are engaging
Often, the courses I review are flat-out boring. A typical course contains a few presentation screens (full of abstract information), followed by an abstract reinforcement exercise (usually multiple-choice, drag-and-drop, or matching), and then the cycle repeats, ad nauseam. At the end, there may be a multiple-choice test that checks to see if I’ve memorized all of the information. Since I haven’t memorized it, and the designer has not conducted any sort of item analysis to make sure that the test is reliable and valid, I am usually able to pass the test within the first two attempts by simply guessing and applying some common sense. Can’t we do better than that?
What engages learners?
Is it fancy graphics and animations?
No, today’s learners have come to expect professional-looking graphics. Poor quality graphics can be demotivating or distracting. On the other hand, even the best graphics have only minimal and temporary positive effects on motivation. There needs to be substance behind the glitz in order to sustain learner engagement.
Is it interactivity?
People like being asked to perform, and they benefit considerably from immediate, well-written feedback. However, when reinforcement exercises lack relevance and meaning, and when they are over-used, they can cause learners to disengage. The interactions in many courses I’ve seen resemble what can only be described as hyper-activity. I often counsel designers to consider: “When you are going to ask the learner to do something, be sure that it is worth the learner’s time and effort to do it; otherwise, you (and the course) lose credibility with the learner.”Credibility is related to trust — learners need to trust that they will learn something valuable from the experience. Otherwise, why would they stick with it? Classroom instructors know the importance of credibility, because they face the immediate consequences of losing it. If they lose the learners’ trust, the learners tune out. Multimedia designers rarely get to see how learners react to their courses, so the risk is that they can become insensitive to the needs of the learner.
Is it gaming?
People, even those working in corporate
Is it a simulation?
Adults learn best when they get to do things. Well-designed computer-based simulations enable learners to perform tasks and to make decisions, and then to experience the positive and negative consequences of those actions and decisions. Poorly designed simulations can be just as boring as poorly designed tutorials, especially when they lack authenticity. In addition, the cost and timelines associated with simulation development are not always justifiable.
What else is there?
An under-utilized strategy in e-Learning is case-based learning. While our online courses can rarely replicate the real-life conditions of the workplace, a case can help the learner analyze realistic situations, consider different perspectives, consider alternative solutions, make decisions, and reflect on the consequences of those decisions.
Consider the simple exercise shown in Figure 4. The learner reads a case (which she downloads), analyzes it, and then types her response in the space provided. Upon clicking Submit, the learner is able to compare her response with a best-practice response provided by our SME. We have designed a variety of other case-based and scenario-based exercises that involve open-ended responses, multiple-choice, multiple-select, categorization, sequencing, and other commonly used types of reinforcement exercises. This can be a low-tech, low-cost approach to designing relevant, meaningful, and engaging learning activities.
Figure 4 Case studies are a low-cost way to provide relevant, meaningful, and engaging learning activities.
The point is — consider ways to get learners engaged by tapping into their analytical, decision-making, and evaluation capabilities. Adults enjoy using their higher-order thinking skills, as opposed to memorizing facts. High-level thinking and decision-making is what adults do best, and it’s what our workers generally get paid to do in their jobs. Jobs that involve regurgitating facts all day are in the minority.
So, again, the most successful courses I have seen, based on pilot feedback, Level 1 evaluation feedback, dropout rates, and on-the-job performance impact, share the characteristics of being relevant, meaningful, and engaging. Unfortunately, these kinds of courses are in the minority.
