How to turn a boring distraction into a powerful asset
By Dan Bobinski

As someone who strives to create engaging, interactive e-learning, I have to admit, I said “no kidding!” when management-issues.com posted a piece entitled E-learning is a boring distraction. The reason? They’re right! In many cases, unless the learner has a legitimate interest in the material being presented, there’s a fair chance many online presentations will seem boring.

The Early Days

Admittedly, it used to be an oxymoron to have the phrases “e-learning” and “quality training” in the same sentence, unless they were separated by the phrase “is not.” (more…)

We’ve come a long way in e-learning, and along the way certain best practices have emerged.

Here are just a few - but I’d love to see a collection of best practice tips grow in the comments section go on for a mile or two . . .

-  It ought to be clear by now that everyone participating in your course is computer literate. The numbers are getting smaller each year, but some people remain steadfastly computer illiterate - and sometimes on purpose!

-  Keep cognizant of the technologies available to your end users. Low bandwidth mindsets in the development phase makes your e-learning easier for those  without high speed access. Teaching people in rural areas may mean they’re still on dial-up. In fact, in some places, dial up is the only service available!

-  Use graphics and special audio only if they add to the learning.  In other words, a spinning word (think bad PowerPoint) irritates more people than it impresses.  A lot more people.  A good rule to remember: If it doesn’t contribute to the student’s learning, don’t use it.

-  Please, please, please - make sure the navigation on your page is user-friendly. If a learner cannot figure out what to do next or where to “click” next, the learner quickly becomes irritated and prefers not to continue the learning. 

That’s just a few … I could list a bunch more, but what does your experience say?  Add your tips and best practices for developing e-learning in the comments section — let’s see how many we can list.

After 25 years as a trainer, I get a little fed up with people who get carried away with the saying, “we don’t train people - we educate people, and we train animals.”Feels like I’m listening to people argue about whether to say roots or roots. (got that one? )

My question is, do we know what you mean?  Great!  Next topic, please.

But for those who insist on arguing, I will respond with this:

What are we trying to do?  Get people to learn!

And, for a number of years now, this concept has been catching on.  In fact, many organizations have re-titled their training departments to Learning departments. And 20 years ago you never saw a Chief Learning Officer — but you do now.  A lot of them.

They even have a their own magazine!

The idea behind it all is to make sure people know their jobs. Hopefully, if the training has been conducted well, people also know how their job inter-relates with other jobs.

Thank God we’re using the word learning now. We can argue over whether people being trained or being educated, but what’s most important is that people learn.

Training is an integral part of success.  Just ask the gold medal winners at the Olympics. Unfortunately, many companies view training as a necessary evil. There’s always a reason for things, and my guess for their view is that they don’t know now to measure the value of their training.

It’s certainly do-able. Not as easy as counting widgets or computing time-to-market, but do-able nonetheless. .

To help these organizations out we need look no further than Donald Kirkpatrick or Jack Phillips. Both have a number of books out on the subject of measuring return on investment.

Problem? Companies don’t want to do it. (Remember, people don’t like to do things they don’t understand). 

LEVEL I

Evaluating training starts with what Kirkpatrick calls Level I — the basic reaction to the training. We often refer to these as ‘evaluation sheets’ or ‘smile sheets.’

But all they do is measure a person’s reaction to the training. Not much more.

LEVEL II

Kirkpatrick’s second level measures whether or not the learners actually acquired any knowledge, skill, or appropriate attitudes (often called KSA’s).  This level requires a pretest and a post test - which many companies don’t want to bother with.   … Which is why they don’t know whether or not their training is effective.

LEVEL III

Kirkpatrick’s level three measures behavior. In other words, did learners modify their behavior as a result of acquiring new KSA’s?  Problem for most employers?  Again - they’re often too reactionary to conduct the necessary pre-test so they have a baseline for later comparison.

LEVEL IV

Last is level four, which seeks to measure results. As Kirkpatrick says, level four is the most difficult to measure because of myriad factors that can affect results other than training.  And once again - a pre-training / post-training measurement process is involved.

Of course - all of this is possible.  And, if done correctly, companies would know whether or not their training was giving them a return on their training dollar investment.  Whey they won’t do it?  Best to go ask your employer . . . .