Learn. Show. Repeat.

Category: Instructional Design

  • 5 Books Every eLearning Professional Should Read

    Even though we live in a digital world I still love reading paper books. This post has been floating around with me for a while and the idea for it came from a post by Ryan Tracey called ‘5 papers every learning professional should read’.

    This post is pretty much the same but with books instead of papers. I’ve chosen each book because they’re easy to read (over a period of time rather than one sitting), they provide useful strategies that you can implement and they provide a great reference that I go back to.

    I’ve listed them here in no particular order:

    eLearning and the Science of Instruction by Ruth Colvin Clark and Richard E. Mayer

    One of the first books I read when I started in eLearning and over time I’ve discovered that anything written by Ruth Colvin Clark is well worth a look. What I like about this book is the theory (working memory, cognitive load and related principles) is explained in a straightforward way and there’s practical examples based on research of what can be done to improve eLearning design.

     

    Design for How People Learn by Julie Dirksen

    This one also has a good mix of evidenced-based theory and ideas that can be implemented into your own designs. It looks at learning from a wide perspective – how we process and store information, how to design for skills and for knowledge as well as motivation and the learning environment. I’ve got the first edition but there’s a second edition now available.

     

    The Accidental Instructional Designer by Cammy Bean

    This book written by someone who started out much like I did – transitioning into the role of instructional designer. There were many times throughout the book that I related to Cammy’s experiences. She covers a lot of ground – different skills of an ID, working with SME’s, ideas for gaining attention, writing, visual design and meaningful interactivity – that includes avoiding what she calls ‘clicky-clicky bling-bling’.

     

    Visual Design Solutions by Connie Malamed

    Graphic design is a skill that I’ve had to work on (and continue to work on). This book is chock full of ideas to improve the visual element of your modules and looks at how to organise screen objects, working with images, typography and using imagery to enhance explanation and as part of storytelling.

     

    Show Your Work by Jane Bozarth

    The practice of showing your work is about making the stuff in your head, the ‘how-to’, visible for others to see and use. Find out more about what it means to show your work and see the many, many real examples shared by folks from all walks of life.

     

    What do you think? What books would you add?

    5 books

  • eLearning for Everyone

    The guiding principles around accessible eLearning come from what’s known as the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines or WCAG (in the US the guidelines for accessibility are known as Section 508). Following these guidelines will make our content accessible to a wider range of people with disabilities but they’ll also often make our content more usable to everyone in general which is really what we need to be thinking about.

    As I travel around the country delivering Storyline 2 training, I usually ask whether people are factoring in accessibility in their eLearning module design. From the responses I get, those working in the corporate environment either don’t know much about accessibility or aren’t required to do anything about it and for those working in government it’s something they need to include as part of the design.

    WCAG 2.0 is a stable, referenceable technical standard comprising of 4 principles and to comply with WCAG, anyone producing online content must ensure that it is:

    Principle 1: Perceivable – This means that users must be able to perceive the information being presented – it can’t be invisible to all of their senses.

    Principle 2: Operable – This means that users must be able to operate the interface (the interface cannot require interaction that a user cannot perform).

    Principle 3: Understandable – This means that users must be able to understand the information as well as the operation of the user interface (the content or operation cannot be beyond their understanding).

    Principle 4: Robust – Content must be robust enough that it can be interpreted reliably by a wide variety of user agents, including assistive technologies.

    To help remember these principles, think POUR.

    There’s also 12 guidelines that are organised under these principles and for each guideline, there are testable success criteria, which are at three levels: A (the minimum), AA (more enhanced), and AAA (advanced compliance). The guidelines and success criteria lay the foundation necessary for anyone to access and use Web content. They’ll help you to ensure that everyone can access your learning experience.

    There’s two factors that contribute to creating accessible eLearning. The first is the authoring tool itself and generally can do things like:

    • Allowing content to be navigated by using the keyboard
    • Allowing us to put alternative text on our images
    • Allowing for the screen objects to be read by a screen reader

     

    But in addition to that, and more importantly, our design decisions impact heavily on the level of accessibility (and therefore useability) of the module, for example:

    • The types interactions we include
    • Colour combinations we use
    • Fonts/typefaces we use
    • What we use for alternative text
    • The language we use and the way we write
    • The layout of our screens

    After all, authoring tools don’t build eLearning by themselves they require human input and design. So many of our decisions can impact on accessibility for our users.

    Accessibility is a big area and there’s lots to learn and I’ve certainly learnt a lot about it over the past 18 months. Here’s some resources that contain practical advice on incorporating accessibility into eLearning design (click on a title to view):

    Quick reference guide: How to Meet WCAG 2.0

    A guide showing all of the principles and guidelines and what you need to do to meet them.

    It’s Not Just About Compliance: Accessibility in eLearning by Jane Bozarth

    In this post from Learning Solutions Magazine, Jane points out that accessibility goes beyond those with disabilities.

    6 Best Practices for Designing Accessible eLearning (ebook)

    This ebook comes from Articulates E-Learning Heroes Community and provides some practical steps you can incorporate into your eLearning design.

    Do’s and Don’ts on Designing for Accessibility by Karwai Pun

    This post contains 6 posters developed by Karwai showing the dos and don’ts of designing for users with accessibility needs including autism, blindness, low vision, deaf or hard of hearing, mobility and dyslexia.

    Making eLearning Accessible for Everyone (video – 31mins)

    This was a presentation I gave at LearnX where I spoke about accessibility and some things you can do in Storyline 2.

     

    An organisation called WebAIM (Web Accessibility In Mind) has lots of useful articles and tools to help create accessible eLearning:

    Fonts

    Colour Contrast Checker

    Alternative text

    If you have any more useful resources or tips on creating accessible eLearning, please share them in the comments below.

    Crowd of people

    Image source: Shutterstock

  • Rules of Engagement

    shutterstock_144207847

    In the eLearning space, a phrase that I see used a lot by designers and developers is their ability to ‘create engaging eLearning experiences’. But what does that really mean? Well, according to dictionary.com the word “engage” is defined as:

    “To occupy the attention or efforts of (a person or persons)”

    Sounds reasonable and definitely something we should be doing but if engaging eLearning is being created by so many, why is there still so much poor eLearning around? (Sidenote: I realise that an eLearning module isn’t always the solution to a performance problem so I’m coming from the instance of when it is).

    Authoring tools alone don’t create engaging eLearning, not without human intervention consisting of design and adding objects into them. So I suggest that perhaps there’s different ‘types’ of engagement in eLearning experiences used by designers and developers.

    Visual

    Visual engagement comes from the appearance or look-and-feel of the eLearning. It’s about the colours, fonts, images and layout used. It’s how these elements are connected and how well they support the message and content. But while a visually appealing module can draw you in (and occupy your attention), looks are superficial and will wear off on long, dry, content driven eLearning experiences because boring is still boring even if it looks pretty.

    Physical

    Physical engagement comes from having to actually do something during the module and in many cases this will probably involve a combination of clicking, dragging and hovering (requiring some attention and effort). Now I’m all for doing in eLearning but I do question whether clicking/dragging/hovering does anything for real engagement, I mean if there’s some information and instead of just displaying it, users need to click some buttons to reveal the same content but in small pieces, is that any better? I wrestle with this sometimes – is more clickable/dragable and hoverable more engaging?

    Mental

    This type of engagement is about using the mind. It’s about provoking thinking, providing a challenge or challenges. It’s about applying information to situations, making decisions and dealing with the consequences. It’s using stories. It’s making you feel something. It’s also about creating an experience that’s relevant and useful to people that will ultimately improve their performance. For me personally, these things are what really makes an eLearning experience engaging.

    In creating an eLearning module, all these types of engagement are needed (maybe there’s more?) but often the mental engagement is left out and what’s left is just beautiful, interactive content that’s quickly forgotten.

    So, what are your thoughts on engagement in eLearning? What about measuring engagement? Do you do it and if so how?

     

    Image source: Shutterstock

  • More than One Way with Storyline 2

    Sometimes I like to experiment with ideas for eLearning interactions and a few months ago one of these experiments led me to creating this carousel-style interaction (you can click the image to see a demo):

    Carousel slider demo

    I wrote about it here but essentially it uses a slider to show layers with each image in a different position. I also posted the demo to an E-Learning Heroes Community forum and someone asked if the same effect could be created using buttons instead. The short answer is yes and here’s how I did it.

    I started by making a duplicate of the current slider-based interaction as the layers and positions of the images are set up correctly. I deleted the slider and created a couple of buttons (one for left and one for right) using a square shape and an arrow image that I had on file.

    Button breakdown

    Then I needed to figure out a way to make the layers show (creating the spin effect) depending on which arrow was being clicked. I wanted to make the images spin in the same direction as the arrow that was being clicked.

    The solution I came up with was to use a number variable. Variables are great because they ‘remember’ information and the same variable can be used many times anywhere in your project. You can then use this information to make things happen. The slider interaction uses a number variable but it’s created when you insert the slider. For this interaction, I created my own number variable.

    First, I added my variable via the ‘Manage project variables’ area…

    Manage project variables

    …and called it ‘Count’.

    Count variable

    Then I added two triggers (one for each button) the add 1 to Count if you click the right arrow or subtract 1 from Count if you click the left arrow.

    Add to count

    Then I needed to do something with the Count information – instead of the layers showing when the slider was in a particular position, they’d now show when the variable Count had a certain value.

    show layer trigger

    Remember, clicking the buttons changed the value and so a different layer would be shown each time.

    Because you can’t keep spinning the images around and around, I added some change of state triggers on the arrow buttons that change their state when you go as far as you can in either direction. As a bonus, I also found that by using the buttons instead of the slider, it freed up some space in the middle of the slide that allowed me to add a small amount of text (if required).

    Often there’s more than one way of building something in Storyline 2 and this is another example of this as well as the power that variables can bring to your project.

    To view the updated interaction click the image below:

    Carousel

    You can access the .story file from the Downloads page of this website.

  • Designing Effective Multimedia Lessons for Learning

    This blog post is a slightly altered essay that I recently submitted as part of my Master of Education (Educational Psychology) studies.

    The delivery of learning via the use of multimedia (also known as eLearning) continues to be a popular choice in workplaces around the world. In my current role as an Instructional Designer, I am involved in the design and development of eLearning courses for corporate clients with the aim of closing knowledge gaps in employees and ultimately improving their performance. The challenge for myself, and indeed all instructional designers, is how to best present information in such a way that it does not overload the known limits of working memory and allows for transfer into long-term memory. This essay will discuss Mayer’s Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning and the resulting principles for designing multimedia instruction that when applied can improve learning delivered via eLearning. The term multimedia presentation is commonly defined as “any presentation containing words (such as narration or on-screen text) and graphics (such as illustrations, photos, animation or video)”.

    Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning

    Much research has been conducted into multimedia instruction (using multimedia presentations) with the goal of finding ways to foster meaningful learning or a “deep understanding of the material”. Drawing on the work of Paivio’s Dual Coding Theory, Baddeley’s Working Memory Model and Sweller’s Cognitive Load Theory, Mayer developed a theory specifically for multimedia learning. The Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning is based on three assumptions about how the human mind works during multimedia instruction:

    1. Dual channel – humans possess separate information processing channels for verbal and visual material.
    2. Limited capacity – the verbal and visual channels can only process a limited amount of information.
    3. Active processing – learning requires substantial cognitive processing via the verbal and visual channels.

     

    According to the theory, multimedia presentations containing words (text or spoken) and pictures are received by the learner via their sensory memory (ears and eyes). Selected words and images are then processed by the working memory at the shallow and potentially deep levels which is then integrated with prior knowledge held in long-term memory.
    Multimedia presentations have the potential to overload the limited capacity of the learner’s working memory in many ways. Mayer and Moreno also highlight three types of cognitive demands placed on learners during multimedia instruction:

    1. Essential processing – required to make sense of the presented words and images.
    2. Incidental processing – required to process additional words and or images not related to processing the presented material.
    3. Representational holding – the cognitive processing required to hold visual or verbal material in working memory for a period of time.

     

    Whilst essential processing is linked to the material being learned, incidental processing and representational holding place additional demands on working memory capacity and can interfere with the learner’s ability to process and transfer the material to their long-term memory. In addition, Clark and Mayer use the term extraneous processing to describe the processing of material not related to the learning goal or caused by poor instructional layout.

    The cognitive architecture underpinning Mayer’s theory has led to (via numerous studies) the creation of principles for the design on multimedia instruction. These principles create guidelines for instructional designers wanting to create multimedia instruction based on what is known about the processing capabilities of the human memory. Several of the principles will now be discussed and applied to a sample multimedia lesson that I created with the aim of teaching people about a coffee machine.

    Multimedia Principle

    According to the multimedia principle, learning is improved when words and pictures are used in multimedia presentations rather than words alone. Research into the multimedia principle by Clark and Mayer, examined lessons that taught scientific and mechanical processes, for example, how lightning is formed or how a bicycle pump works and found that “students who received multimedia lessons consisting of words and pictures performed better that those who received the same information via words alone”.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1

    Figure 1 shows a screen from a sample eLearning module that contains only text. If learning is to be improved, applying the multimedia principle would require the addition of an image, an example of which can be seen in Figure 2:

    Figure 2

    Figure 2

    The type of treatment of a screen of information in Figure 2 is often seen in eLearning courses, however the image is not directly related to the material being presented and as such does not support the instruction. Clark and Lyons refer to these types of images as decorative and are usually added to make content appear more ‘interesting’. However, they do not contribute to learning and actually require processing by cognitive resources that are already limited and therefore is an example of incidental processing. Another example of incidental processing would be the inclusion of background music playing as the content is delivered. In this example, an improvement would be via the inclusion of an image of the coffee machine that the text is referring to as seen in Figure 3 (additionally, a further improvement could be made by indicating which part of the machine each section of the text refers to).

    Figure 3

    Figure 3

    Contiguity Principle

    In multimedia presentations, words (either text or spoken) and pictures are sometimes used to describe how a process or piece of equipment works or to deliver content to the learner. The contiguity principle states that words and pictures should be integrated rather than separated. Two contiguity effects have been identified by Moreno and Mayer, firstly the spatial-contiguity effect where words and pictures are separated either on the same screen and need to be combined to understand the on-screen content (see Figure 4) or placed on different screens thereby requiring the learner to move between screens to integrate the material in order to make sense of it.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4

    In Figure 4, the learner is required to move from the labelled image to the appropriate piece of information and integrate all the pieces with its corresponding label. To reduce the spatial-contiguity effect, the text should be integrated with the image or positioned close to the part of the image to which it refers to as seen in Figure 5. In this case, the learner can reveal the information about the parts of the machine by hovering their mouse over each number. This allows the learner to both explore the image and reveal only one piece of information at any one time thereby reducing the amount of cognitive processing required.

    Secondly, there is the temporal-contiguity effect where spoken words are presented before or after on-screen visuals and therefore require learners to hold some information in their working memory and integrate it with other information contained in the presentation. This again requires the use of limited cognitive resources to process the information being presented and is an example of representational holding.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5

    Clark, Nguyen and Sweller refer to the separation of on-screen content as leading to ‘split attention’ meaning that learners have to attend to both sources of information separately. Research by Moreno and Mayer found that “learning is impaired when on-screen text is spatially separated from the visual materials”. This was supported by Clark and Mayer who also identify other examples of where the contiguity effect is violated in multimedia presentations, for example, when information is presented in a scrolling panel and the learner must locate some information and integrate it with on-screen images or when a question is asked and the feedback given is placed on a different screen to the question or when links to references appear in a new browser window or where audio narration is followed by a video rather than being presented at the same time. Therefore, when designing eLearning, on-screen objects should be positioned in close proximity to descriptions and if audio narration is used, it should be synchronised with the objects being described.

    Modality Principle

    The nature of multimedia presentations allow for the inclusion of combinations of words, pictures, audio and video so another important design consideration is how and when to incorporate each (assuming that it is practicable to do so). According to the modality principle, learning is improved when on-screen text that describes an image is replaced by audio. As mentioned earlier, the Cognitive Theory of Multimedia Learning assumes that information is processed via dual channels i.e. visual and auditory. When only words and pictures are used on-screen, as seen in Figure 3, the visual channel can become overloaded. However, replacing on-screen text with audio spreads the cognitive load across both channels reducing the processing demand on a single channel. Mayer and Moreno refer to the use of audio in this way as ‘offloading’ as some of the cognitive processing of the visual channel is off-loaded to the verbal channel. It should be mentioned that the modality principle has the most research support of any of the design principles and many experiments have reached the same conclusion, that pictures combined with narration results in improved learning over pictures and on-screen text.

    In Figure 6, much of the on-screen text has been replaced by audio describing parts of the machine with the on-screen labels (synchronised with the audio) used to guide the learner to the part of the machine that the audio is referring to. Incidentally, presenting the information in this way also supports temporal-contiguity and reduces the amount of information that must be held in working memory.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6

    Redundancy Principle

    Whilst using text and audio to present on-screen information spreads the cognitive processing across processing channels, presenting audio and identical on-screen text results in redundant information being processed by the learner i.e. the same information is being processed by both channels. Studies show that learners who viewed multimedia presentations containing animations and narration outperformed those who viewed the same presentations that contained animation, narration and on-screen text. Further research by Mayer and Johnson confirmed this but with the addition of a limitation “except when the on-screen text is short, highlights a key action described in the narration, and is placed next to the portion of the graphic that it describes”. Therefore, the example in Figure 6 would not be an example of redundancy and the text is short and is positioned near to the part of the image that the narration is describing.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7

    The screen example shown by Figure 7 is an example of redundancy when the on-screen text is replicated by the audio narration being spoken. However, Figure 6 is an example that has had the redundant text removed except for a key piece of text that is timed to appear on-screen as the audio is being spoken.

    Personalisation Principle

    Another aspect of designing multimedia presentations is the style of writing used throughout. The opinions of designers is often divided when asked if it is better to write in a formal or conversational style. In studies by Mayer, Fennell, Farmer and Campbell, a multimedia lesson on how the human respiratory system works, the word ‘the’ was changed to ‘your’ in 12 places throughout the lesson. The hypothesis was that “using the self as a reference point increases learner interest and encourages the learner to use available cognitive capacity for active cognitive processing of the incoming information”. Results found that learning was improved on subsequent transfer tests but there was no significant improvement on retention tests. While the studies support the personalisation principle in multimedia instruction the authors caution the overuse of personalising as it may cause the instruction to contain interesting yet irrelevant details which in turn may distract the learner.

    The use of on-screen coaches or ‘pedagogical agents’ has also been examined to determine if they assist or hinder learning in multimedia presentations. Research found that learning was improved in groups whose multimedia contained an agent over those whose did not. Furthermore, it was also found that the agent did not have to look ‘real’ as there was no significant difference in results from groups who had a cartoon character agent.

    Summary

    Delivering instruction via multimedia presentations is widely used in many organisations. In order to improve learning from multimedia, instructional designers should look to apply evidence based principles of multimedia instruction into their designs in order to improve learning outcomes. This essay has discussed the cognitive theory of multimedia instruction along with the assumptions of how the human memory system operates. Furthermore, principles of multimedia design that can improve learning such as the multimedia principle, contiguity principle, modality principle, redundancy principle and personalisation principle were also discussed and applied to a sample eLearning module.

    References
    Clark, R., & Lyons, C. (2004). Graphics for learning. San Francisco, Pfeiffer.
    Clark, R., & Mayer, R. E. (2008). E-learning and the science of instruction: Proven  guidelines for consumers and designers of multimedia learning. John Wiley and Sons  Inc.
    Clark, R., Nguyen, F., & Sweller, J. (2006). Efficiency in learning. San Francisco: John  Wiley & Sons Inc.
    Mayer, R. E., Fennell, S., Farmer, L., & Campbell, C. (2004). A personalisation effect in  multimedia learning: Students learn better when words are in a conversational style rather than a formal style. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 389-395.
    Mayer, R. E., Heiser, J., & Lonn, S. (2001). Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning:  When presenting more material results in less understanding. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 93(1), 187-198.
    Mayer, R. E., & Johnson, C. I. (2008). Revising the redundancy principle in multimedia  learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(2), 380-386.
    Mayer, R. E., & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia  learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 43-52.
    Moreno, R., & Mayer, R. E. (1999). Cognitive principles of multimedia learning: The role of  modality and contiguity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(2), 358-368.
    Reed, S. K. (2006). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational  Psychologist, 41(2), 87-98.