Tips for Driving the Appropriate Use of Learning Technologies through Practical ISD

Like many powerful tools, learning technology can help or hurt – it depends on how it is used. Getting others to use these technologies appropriately can be a challenge. Those of you around when eLearning was young were able to observed mismatches in learning technology to solution. In that case, eLearning often mismatched the needs and job context of the learner especially when the requirement included some form of behavior or skill acquisition that needed to be applied on the job. This problem is equally if not more prevalent today with new social media and mobile learning technologies available. Many are building wikis, writing blogs, and syndicating podcasts while grouping them under the Learning 2.0 umbrella, but does their content really support learning or a form of communication by providing access to information? If we are going to use or evangelize any learning technology, we need to get back to the basics – instructional systems design. If other learning professionals lack this basic competency, we need to help them.

Ideally, learning professionals have some training and background in instructional systems design (ISD), but we do not always see that in the real world. Even instructional design degree and certification programs tend to focus on the academic versus practice and lack preparedness for applicability when the graduate gets a job. Anecdotally, how many folks do you know with degrees in an area of expertise but lack the real-world experience required to apply it effectively? The old theory versus reality problem… At the same time, there is a basis for the application of ISD, and that’s the trick, applying ISD at practical and appropriate levels.

As learning technologists, practical ISD at a simplistic level tells us we need to help stakeholders and other learning professionals focus on alignment with business goals, business tools, and the work environment. Then we need to identify the needs of the learner by role and what must be accomplished on the job in the ideal world. We need to determine if a training or learning solution is required (it’s not when the problem is systemic or motivational), create a profile of the learner to include what they do in the real world, and map all that to the type of content that will be required (auditory, visual, kinesthetic, blended). Factor in budget, obstacles, and time to proficiency requirements and we can prescribe a set of learning technologies that meet those needs. As learning technologists, we need to push this approach.

If a learning technologist is not available, job-aides like tool matrices or decision work-flows can help stakeholders and development teams make decisions where learning technology is not a core competency, but later on, experts in the required technology need to be involved - especially in the analysis, design, and development phases. Learning technologists or experts will need to hold hands when their stakeholders are too far from their comfort zones.

If starting fresh or embarking on bleeding edge technologies, do some research to benchmark what’s been done successfully by others. When you have identified which technology will meet your needs, incubate and pilot. Start with small groups and the low hanging fruit during the initial test phases and then focus on the larger wins with larger groups as you proceed. Over communicate your wins but document your mistakes and don't forget the lessons learned - they drive efficiency and cost savings later on.

Lastly, ensure you communicate the purpose and value of the learning technologies up and down the food chain as this will drive adoption with your stakeholders and learners, along with prescriptive usage the learning professionals at your organization will need to drive.

Design

We specify how to build a course during the Design stage. When a house is to be built by a construction crew, an architect creates a blueprint that specifies the layout and measurement of materials for the contractors and construction crews. In similar fashion, instructional designers frame-out the architecture and content flow of the courseware solution in a set of design documents and or storyboards. A robust design leverages the data gathered during the analysis stage, which results in a record that outlines the learning objectives and instructional supports through appropriate delivery media. A valid design must be derived from accurate analysis data in order to develop learning objectives that can predict success through performance on the job. Learning objects based on the task-KSA analysis and support components should be designed as modular so they can be easily grouped, sequenced, updated, and reused. If it is practical, design document templates should be as media-agnostic, so they can be efficiently converted to any blended media with or without an LCMS (Learning Content Management System). At the curriculum level and based on learner analysis data, blended learning paths can be designed for any combination of instructor-led (classroom based), Web instructor-led (virtual class), or self-paced media (Web-based or computer-based). Based on media and technical specifications, instructional supports such as graphics, animations, video, audio, simulations, classroom-based images, virtual labs, pretest, and posttest objects, or any required interactive elements should be indicated. Blended designs and learning paths can also include job-aides, on-the-job training (OJT), coaching, mentoring, and collaboration through social media. Design documents should be submitted to both subject matter experts (SMEs) and stakeholders for validation and approval prior to development.

Design specifications include:
- Development of learning objectives that map to on the job requirements
- Section titles and topologies that indicate breakdown and sequence by module, lesson, and topic, which is also known as MLT
- Specification of instructional supports
- Targeting of critical learning objects for test, interactive, and certification development
- Specification of learning group differences and roles where applicable (multi-user design)
- Use of interactive exercises and practicums that map to job tasks
- Media types
- Timing estimates

Practical design structure at the module or lesson levels:
- Tell'em
> Learning objectives
> Explain what the learner will learn and why
- Show'em
> Demonstrate the task or concept
- Walk'em through it
> Guide and coach through the task
> Provide feedback as prompting
- Have'em try it
> Provide the learner with an opportunity to experience task with minimum feedback
- Have'em apply it
> Provide a real-world problem scenario where the learner can use the new skill
> Test the learner in a situation he or she will likely encounter on the job
- Tell'em again
> Reiterate the learning objective and explain what was accomplished

The structure above can be modified by using the parts that are appropriate. What is important is the progression from what is explained or demonstrated - to the transfer of learning.

Risks if not conducted or conducted improperly:
- Misdirected development efforts due to a lack-of or inaccurate architectural specifications
- (Think of trying to get from point A to point B in unfamiliar territory without a map)
- Extended development timelines and cost due to design error and misdirection
- A course that does not meet the required needs of the participants resulting in project failure and a dissatisfied stakeholder

Analysis and Planning: Organizational Analysis

Organizational Analysis:

This sub-phase identifies organizational readiness for the learning solution. The organizational analysis validates and aligns the stakeholder’s mission and objectives with strategic delivery of a courseware solution, as mutually confirmed by stakeholder decision makers and the delivery team. The organizational analysis identifies critical information for the developed courseware solution, which should be mapped to criteria for behavior-based learning outcomes, performance outcomes, learner characteristics, and return on investment measures. Data should be mapped to the design phase as appropriate. An organizational analysis summary should be submitted.

Data collected at this stage includes:

• Critical success factors for synchronous and/or asynchronous training
• Confirmation of mission objectives
• Identification of training goals, expectations, and success measures
• Identification for points-of-contact
• Identification of systemic support factors
• Identification of constraining variables
• Confirmation that the problem to be addressed is based on a skill deficit vs. a performance or systemic deficit
• Paralleling project charter and planning

Risks if not conducted or conducted improperly:

• The solution does not meet expectations of decision-makers
• Misalignment of the course expectations with organizational or departmental goals, values, mission, and vision
• Support factors, external constraints, and climate related factors that do not facilitate transfer of training and thus result on project failure
• Losses of internal and predictive validity as benchmarks are not tailored to organizational needs for predicting success. (Internal validity looks at if training made any difference at all. Predictive validity is how training should predict success on the job based on criterion measures.)
• Miscommunication between the various constituencies of the stakeholder and the development team
  
• Development of a training solution for an outcome-oriented problem that requires a systemic or motivational solution
• Missed deadlines - extended project plans, and unforeseen obstacles to product success that do not meet stakeholder expectations due to a lack of proactive planning
• A dissatisfied stakeholder due to misdirected planning

We will discuss Task-KSA Analysis next.