Development

Courseware is built during the Development phase, where the solution is created based on the specifications of the approved design architecture, and within the required timeframes identified at planning. The training product should be built in delivery media based on the learners’ profile, required testing instrumentation, hands-on images (real, virtual, or simulated), augmentative instructional aides, and pre-deployment technologies for blended media where appropriate. The training product and content should be audited, quality assured, and piloted (Alpha and Beta) for content validity (by SMEs), technical compliance (image, SCORM, AICC, etc.), learner utility, and publication-standards purposes. Beta pilots must simulate the delivery environment to minimize issues. Subsequent revision is typically required to meet stakeholder needs identified during analysis and therefore should be accounted for in project schedules. Curriculum owner involvement in testing, sign-off, and approval is required for each development milestone.

Based on statements of work and or a project charter, development formats include:

- Instructor-Led Training (ILT - classroom-based)
- Virtual Classroom (synchronous eLearning delivered via live Web connection)
- Self-Paced Training (asynchronous eLearning delivered as hosted or through CD or file on the local machine) (SPT, WBT, CBT, WILR, SPS)
- Mobile Learning (mLearning delivered to MP3/MP4 players, PDA, mobile phone, and smartphones like BlackBerry and iPhone)
- On-the-Job Training (OJT)
- Job Aides
- Collaborative and Social Learning 2.O tools (includes collaboration suites, coaching, mentoring discussion threads, learning Wikis, expert-produced blogs, and relevant RSS feeds)
- Learning Management System (LMS) supports
- Evaluation Systems (reaction/satisfaction, knowledge/skill transfer, application on the job, on the job performance improvement, return on the training investments)
- Blended media delivery combining any or all of the above as indicated by the learner and media specifications analyses and design documents

Risks if not conducted properly:

- A product that is not properly tested before final implementation to the customer and or their learners
- A product that is not fine-tuned to the needs of target learning groups
- Discovery of problems or technical difficulty with the product at implementation resulting in high issue counts as opposed to identification and resolution before delivery
- Project failure or extended development cycles resulting in missed milestones, deadlines, and cost-targets- A course that does not meet design specifications falls short of stakeholder expectations, and results in learner dissatisfaction

More on Design - PI

It's important to address the science behind instructional design. For reasons unknown, programmed instruction (PI) in eLearning seems to be all but abandoned in much of the learning content I review. In my opinion, this is a flaw in instructional design and worse, is only supported by popular eLearning development tools, because they omit this capability.

Gagne actually pioneered this mode of instruction in the mid 1960s. For those unfamiliar, programmed instruction models assess a learner's needs through some form of testing and loop back, branch-forward, or multi-path based on performance to pass/fail criteria. More robust PI models incorporate both pretesting an posttesting. The biggest advantage to this design model is that delivery of content is customized to a learner's needs because only filtered content is delivered (based on what the learner did not pass). In essence, a form of needs assessment is built into course delivery and the user experience. How cool is that?

Development tools like Macromedia Authorware or CA KnowledgeTRACK were great at facilitating this mode of design. Unfortunately these tools are no longer available, (in all honesty - they were cumbersome to use.) Meanwhile, social and Learning 2.0 suites like Q2 Learning's eCampus currently bake PI functionality into a learning path (Check it out at: http://www.q2learning.com/). None-the-less, this is a methodology we should revive. Take another look at the process illustrated above and decide for yourself.

In the Middle of the Curve: CA Case Study - Informal Learning

In the Middle of the Curve: CA Case Study - Informal Learning