Learn. Show. Repeat.

Tag: Instructional Design

  • 3 Things I’ve Just Discovered in Storyline 2

    Storyline 2 has heaps of great functions to help create fantastic eLearning, so many in fact, it’s hard to know them all. But in the past couple of weeks I’ve come across three hidden ones (well, hidden to me) that I wish I had known earlier. I wanted to share them here because if they’re new to me, chances are they’ll be new to someone else too.

    #3 – Moving Objects with Arrow Keys

    Ok, I’ve known for a while that you can move objects (shapes, text boxes, images) using the arrow keys but sometimes I found that they didn’t move far enough and then the next move was too far! That’s because when you move something with an arrow key, it moves by 8 pixels at a time.

    But if you hold down the CTRL key and press the arrow key, it just nudges the object by just 1 pixel! This is really good for making those fine on-screen adjustments.

    Note: You can also do this in PowerPoint.

    #2 – Size and Position

    This comes in handy when you want to have different objects in the same place on-screen across different slides. To find the position of an object:

    Select the object and right-click:

    Size and Position

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Select Size and Position

    Then click on Position:

    Position box

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    You’ll see the horizontal and vertical position of the object on the slide. In this case it’s from the top left corner but you can change it and go from the centre. Now you can line up your objects on different slides by using the same position for each!

    Note: You can do this in PowerPoint too.

    #1 Hiding Base Layer Objects via the Timeline

    When working with layers, have you ever wanted to hide some of the objects on the base layer? I sure have! SL2 does give you the option to hide all objects on the base layer and when I’ve wanted to only hide some of them I thought you had to a shape to cover them up. But it can be done using the timeline.

    Click on the layer.

    Look at the Timeline and you’ll see a tiny little arrow near Base Layer Objects:

    Base Layer Objects closed

    Click on the arrow and it will now point down and all the objects on the base layer will be shown:

    Base Layer Objects Open

    Next to each object is an ‘eye’ symbol.

    Click on the eye of the objects that you want hidden (it will turn grey and the objects will hide on screen).

    Here’s a before:

    Before

    And After:

    After

    Each time you are on that layer the objects you’ve selected will be hidden. You could have different settings for different layers if you wanted too.

    Well that’s it, three little functions I’m glad I now know about. Hopefully they’ll come in handy for you too!

    Special thanks to Beck and Ruth for telling me about these three gems.

  • Showing My Work #8

    Often when we talk about our work, we talk in terms of ‘what’ we did. The Showing My Work series of posts aim to also capture the ‘how’ something was done.

    E-Learning Heroes Challenge #57 – Preventing Workplace Violence. The brief: This week your challenge is to show scenario examples designed to prevent or address workplace violence. You can structure your demo any way you like – just be sure to include some type of scenario.

    For this challenge, I decided to use a branching scenario. This type of scenario gets learners involved in a situation and takes them down a path based on the choices they make (as opposed to just being right or wrong).

    One of the first things I did was to re-read a couple of great posts about branching scenarios:

    Build Branched E-Learning Scenarios in Three Simple Steps by Tom Kuhlmann

    When Do You Need a Branching Scenario? By Cathy Moore

    Because this was a demo and I had limited time, I decided to create a simple branching scenario around the theme of workplace bullying. In the scenario, you are an observer to a situation and you need to make a choice as to what you should do if you saw these events happening.

    Out of the four possible choices, there is one correct action and three different results for the other three actions. Rather than using feedback layers, you move to a new screen based on your selection. You’ll see the consequences of your decision and have the opportunity to select another action.

    Storyview

    None of the consequences say directly if they are ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, instead there is a reaction by one or both of the characters in the scenario and another decision may have to be made. For an incorrect choice, the follow-up question is ‘Now what will you do?’ I used radio buttons for each response and depending on the selection made; it takes you to one of the four slides. The different actions are repeated on each slide (except the action that was selected).

    Slide triggers

    For the background I used an office style picture (to give context) and made it semi-transparent so it didn’t dominate the screen. I place the image on a Master slide to keep everything consistent.

    While branching scenarios take longer to develop and build, the experience for the learner is much improved and, in the real world, if we make an incorrect choice we can often make another decision to get things back on track.

    Here’s my demo, you can click on the image to view it:

    Workplace Scenario

    Let me know what you think and you can see all of my ELH Challenge entries on My Portfolio page.

  • Working with Cognitive Load

    When I first started working as an eLearning instructional designer I became interested in the learning process and how people learn. I figured that if I knew more about information processing and learning, I could hopefully design more effective courses and materials. I came across a book called Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load by Ruth Colvin Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller. In this book I discovered – among other things – Cognitive Load Theory (CLT) which is based on studies of human cognitive architecture – how we process and organise information.

    In our brains, we have two types of memory. One is our working memory, which we use to process new information. The capacity of our working memory is quite limited so it can only handle so much before it becomes overloaded. The second is our long-term memory, which is where we store information from our working memory and where we retrieve that information from later. Within our long-term memory, information is organised into schemas, which are organisational frameworks of storage (like filing cabinets). Not exceeding working memory capacity will result in greater transfer of information into long-term memory.

    CLT proposes that there are three types of cognitive load:

    Intrinsic: this is the level of complexity inherent in the material being studied. There isn’t much that we can do about intrinsic cognitive load; some tasks are more complex than others so will have different levels of intrinsic cognitive load.

    Extraneous: this is cognitive load imposed by non-relevant elements that require extra mental processing e.g. decorative pictures, animations etc. that add nothing to the learning experience.

    Germane: these are elements that allow cognitive resources to be put towards learning i.e. assist with information processing.

    The three types of cognitive load are additive so according to the theory, for instruction to be effective:

    Intrinsic load + Extraneous load + Germane load < Working memory capacity

    To assist learners in transferring information from their working memory to their long-term memory, we need to present the information in such a way that it reduces extraneous cognitive load (non-relevant items) and, if possible, increases germane cognitive load (items that assist with information processing). Note: I’ve found that much of the literature tends to focus on reducing extraneous cognitive load.

    Mayer and Moreno (2003) conducted research into ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Their research, built on CLT, was based on three assumptions:

    1. Humans possess separate information processing channels for verbal and visual material (Dual Channel).
    2. There is only a limited amount of processing capacity available via the visual (eyes) and verbal (ears) channels (Limited Capacity).
    3. Learning requires substantial cognitive processing via the visual and verbal channels (Active Processing).

    They found that designers should do the following to assist learners in processing information:

    • Present some information via the visual channel and some via the verbal channel.
    • Break content into smaller segments and allow the learner to control the pace.
    • Remove non-essential content – this includes background music and decorative pictures that don’t add value.
    • Words should be placed close as possible to the corresponding graphics.
    • Don’t narrate on-screen text word-for-word.
    • Synchronise visual and verbal content i.e. don’t place them on separate screens.

    As instructional designers, we need to be aware of the cognitive requirements our designs impose and ensure that our learners can meet those requirements. We must also ensure that all aspects of our design focus on adding value to the learning experience.

    References:

    Efficiency in Learning: Evidence-Based Guidelines to Manage Cognitive Load (2006) by Ruth Colvin Clark, Frank Nguyen and John Sweller. Pfeiffer

    Mayer, R. E. & Moreno, R. (2003). Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist. 38, (1), 43-52.

  • Integrating Motivation with Instructional Design

    As an Instructional Designer, motivating learners is an important consideration because in reality learners are not always motivated to learn. They are busy, have other things to do, don’t see the course/session as being important or have had a bad learning experience in the past. I’ve written previously about motivation – Motivation and eLearning – which was about satisfying autonomy, competence and relatedness needs of learners. I’ve come across Dr John Keller’s motivational design model known as ARCS and thought it was worth sharing.

    The ARCS model comprises four major factors that influence the motivation to learn – Attention, Relevance, Confidence and Satisfaction. It’s described as a problem-solving model and helps designers identify and solve specific motivational problems related to the appeal of instruction. The model was developed after a comprehensive review and synthesis of motivation concepts and research studies. It has also been validated in studies across different education levels.

    Dr John Keller

    The four categories of motivation variables consist of sub-categories along with process questions to consider when designing:

    Attention = Capturing the interest of learners, stimulating their curiosity to learn.

    • Perceptual Arousal: What can I do to capture their interest?
    • Inquiry Arousal: How can I stimulate an attitude of inquiry?
    • Variability: How can I maintain their attention?

     

    Relevance = Meeting the personal needs/goals of the learner to affect a positive attitude.

    • Goal Orientation: How can I best meet my learner’s needs? (Do I know their needs?)
    • Motive Matching: How and when can I provide my learners with appropriate choices, responsibilities and influences?
    • Familiarity: How can I tie the instruction to the learners’ experience?

     

    Confidence = Helping the learners believe/feel that they will succeed and control their success.

    • Learning Requirements: How can I assist in building a positive expectation for success?
    • Success Opportunities: How will the learning experience support or enhance the learners’ beliefs in their competence?
    • Personal Control: How will learners clearly know their success is based upon their efforts and abilities?

     

    Satisfaction = Reinforcing accomplishment with rewards (internal and external).

    • Natural Consequences: How can I provide meaningful opportunities for learners to use their newly acquired knowledge/skill?
    • Positive Consequences: What will provide reinforcement to the learners’ successes?
    • Equity: How can I assist the learners in anchoring a positive feeling about their accomplishments?

     

    The following link is to a YouTube video where Dr Keller discusses the ARCS Model, some background in its development and the addition of volition to the model.

    ARCS: A Conversation with John Keller

    Apart from the motivational aspects of the model, what I really like about ARCS is that it puts the learner at the centre of the design process.

    After all, that’s how it should be.

     

    References:

    arcsmodel.com

    Keller, J. M. (1987) Strategies for stimulating the motivation to learn. Performance and Instruction. 26 (8), 1-7.

  • The Next OzLearn Tweet Chat is on 11/11/14

    Ozlearn tweet chat

    On Tuesday 11th November at 8:00pm AEST (UTC +11hrs), @OzLearn is having its next monthly twitter chat. The topic for the chat is based on the post The Benefits and Challenges of Embedding Learning in Work by @charlesjennings

    To join the chat, go to Twitter at 8pm on 11/11, search for @OzLearn and join in the conversation (don’t forget to add #ozlearn to your tweets).

    There’s also an OzLearn LinkedIn group where you can view the Storify of the chat afterwards.

    Hope you can join us for the chat!